Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Secondary Education

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the current annual output of students, in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, respectively, who have completed their secondary education.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): The figures for African students are 1,159 and 1,127 respectively. European secondary education is Federal.

Mr. Fisher: Could my right hon. Friend give the figure of African children receiving secondary education as a percentage of the total number of secondary education age? I believe that it is about 1 per cent. What plans has he to increase the numbers in the near future?

Mr. Macleod: The percentage is certainly small. I could not calculate it offhand. I will, with permission, write to my hon. Friend about that.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much money is made available annually by Her Majesty's Government for secondary education in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, respectively.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Over the last five years Her Majesty's Government have made grants for secondary educational projects totalling £204,625, for Nyasaland and £153,316 for Northern Rhodesia. The yearly figures I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fisher: Does my right hon. Friend think that that is enough money, especially in the context of the gradual transference of power to an African majority in these Territories? Would not he agree that a crash programme of secondary education in these two Colonies is most urgently needed, and that any additional money which may be available for education generally should perhaps be spent on secondary education?

Mr. Macleod: I think that I agree with all of that. Certainly the people of the Territories give high priority to this matter. Her Majesty's Government do not devote fixed annual sums to these purposes. We make grants from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds, and it is for the Territories themselves to decide their priorities.

Following are the details:
These totals show the details of grants made to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia during the last five financial years:

NYASALAND


1955–56
Description of Scheme
1959–60
Description of Scheme


£

£



37,950
Mzozo Secondary School
76,500
Construction of secondary school for girls at Lilongwe.


55,154
Artisan Training School



35,021
Dedza Secondary School



128,125

76,500

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Blood Commission

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what recommendations for the restoration of democratic government in Malta have been made by the Blood Commission.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have now received the Commission's Report, which will be published when I have considered its recommendations. I am doing this urgently.

Mr. Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when that consideration is likely to be concluded? Is he aware that Malta has now been without democratic government for more than twenty months, and that it is urgent that the dictatorship of one man and unrepresentative advisers should be ended?

Mr. Macleod: I use the same word—I said that I am doing this urgently. That will be literally as soon as possible. I cannot put a precise date on it, but it will be very early in the New Year.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Land Titles

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the security of land titles in Kenya.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I expect to make a statement next week.

Mr. Wall: When my right hon. Friend comes to give that statement, will he bear in mind that this problem is unique to Kenya in that some African politicians are claiming that, as the land belongs to the Africans, compensation will be paid only on buildings and other improvements? Does not he agree that, if confidence is to be restored, the farmers in Kenya must be given clear assurances on this matter?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that this is entirely unique to Kenya but it is more difficult there than anywhere else, I know.

Sir H. Oakshott: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that anxiety about this problem has greatly deepened in Kenya recently because of utterances by certain African leaders, and that it is necessary to re-establish confidence in land titles which were originally granted by the Crown?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I fully recognise that.

Detainees

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons still remain detained without trial in Kenya; and what is the longest period over which any of them have been so detained.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Fifty-two detainees remained on 14th December. Four of these have been detained for eight years.

Mr. Dempsey: Is it not rather disgraceful that so many persons should still be detained, and that some should have been detained for as long as eight years? Is not this foreign to our way of life and contrary to the great traditions of British justice? In view of the fact that some of these persons may be innocent, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to see that they get a fair trial very soon, or release them forthwith?

Mr. Macleod: With respect, it does not follow that these detainees are held, and have been held, without trial, because a year ago when the emergency came to an end a number of people serving sentences for very grave crimes indeed, including murder, were transferred to the category of detainee. It is, therefore, not right to say that all these fifty-two detainees are detained without trial. As far as the figures go, whereas early this year the figure was 750, it is now down to 50, and progress, particularly in recent months, has been very swift.

Mr. D. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many persons are restricted, as distinct from being detained?

Mr. Macleod: One hundred and twelve.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why some men who have been tried and acquitted, like Mr. Achieng Oneko, are still under restriction? Surely this is a further point which my hon. Friend did not raise in his Question. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear reply to that?

Mr. Macleod: No—for precisely the reason given. It is not in the Question.

Constitution (Order in Council)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Order in Council amending the Kenya Constitution contains no reference to the racial composition of the Council of Ministers set out in Cmnd. No. 960; and what bearing this has upon the future appointment of a Chief Minister.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I welcome the opportunity of making it clear that the language of the Order in Council follows normal practice in providing for the total number of Ministers and the number of those Ministers who shall be officials, and has no bearing whatsoever on the question of appointing a Chief Minister. Such an appointment would require amendment of the Order in Council. And I reaffirm that the intention remains that, in accordance with the agreement reached at the Lancaster House Kenya Conference, the new Council of Ministers shall, in addition to four officials, comprise four Africans, three Europeans and one Asian.

Mr. Wall: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it will be possible to make further political advance in Kenya—including the appointment of a Chief Minister—only if the African politicians play their part in restoring the confidence of all races in the future of Kenya, which confidence has recently been undermined by some of their electioneering statements?

Mr. Macleod: That is a different point. I was concerned to make it clear that exactly normal practice has been followed in the case of this Order in Council, which amends the 1958 Order in Council, which did not specify racial discrimination in portfolios. I agree that one essential element in political advance is that there should be confidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Trade Schools (Science and Technology)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many trade schools there are in Northern Rhodesia; how many Africans are at present attending them; and what facilities they offer for the study of the sciences and higher technology.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Twenty and 828 respectively. Their aim is to produce trained workmen for industry; science and higher technology are not taught at them but such facilities exist in other educational institutions.

Mr. Swingler: Nevertheless, is it not a fact that at the moment there are no African apprentices on the Copperbelt, and that, therefore, the plans announced by Rhodesian Railways and the copper companies, for example, for the advancement of Africans will remain merely paper plans unless there is an immense extension of technical education facilities for Africans?

Mr. Macleod: Although that is extremely important, the hon. Member's point diverges somewhat from the Question. This matter has recently been examined by a Committee under Sir David Lindsay Keir, whom most hon. Members will know. I have had the report only a day or two, and I will study it as soon as I can.

Africans (Secondary Education)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now expand secondary educational facilities for Africans in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Northern Rhodesia Government recognise this need and have provided in their current Development Plan for the doubling of existing facilities for Africans at all levels of secondary education. The United Kingdom helps by making sums voted under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act available in accordance with territorial development plans, by trying to find teachers from overseas, and with advice.

Mr. Swingler: While to many people the announcement of doubling might appear to be an ambitious plan, since the number getting secondary education hitherto has been only a fraction of 1 per cent., will the Secretary of State pay regard to the fact that an immense enlargement is still necessary if we are to begin to talk about equal opportunities for these people?

Mr. Macleod: I recognise the importance of this, but, as I said earlier, from this country we do not allocate specific


sums. But I know that in Northern Rhodesia—and I have seen their development plans for the next few years—this has very high and, I think, probably the highest individual priority.

Paramount Chief Chitimukulu

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given by the Government of Northern Rhodesia to the fifth petition from the Bemba Ilinga Council, representing a large proportion of the Bemba people, for the restoration of the powers of Paramount Chief Chitimukulu, which were suspended last year; whether he is aware that fifteen out of seventeen of the Bemba chiefs have supported this petition; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It has not been possible to give a definite reply to the Bemba Ilinga Council, as discussions on the future powers of the chief are taking place in Bembaland between the Administration and the Bemba chiefs and councillors. Opinion amongst Bemba chiefs and councillors is by no means unanimous. I am not aware that fifteen chiefs have supported the petition.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if he were able to take some action on this matter quickly and to restore the powers of the Paramount Chief, that would go a long way towards creating that atmosphere of good will which would assist him in the Conference on the Territorial Constitution.

Mr. Macleod: As the hon. Member knows, there has been a good deal of discontent among the Bemba tribe on this matter and opinions vary on both sides. I have asked the Acting-Governor—the Governor himself is in this country, of course—for a reply on this matter and I will let the hon. Member know as soon as possible.

Land Bank

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the date of the transfer of the Northern Rhodesian Land Bank to the Central African Federal Government.

Mr. Iain Macleod: No date has been fixed for the transfer of the Northern Rhodesia Land Bank to the Federal Government.

Mr. Dugdale: First, has the decision actually been made? Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it ludicrous, when the Conference is sitting to decide whether there should be Federation at all, that it should be decided that something should be handed over to the Federal Government?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that negotiations were begun about two months ago, but have not been completed. On the second part, it is necessary in order to provide more capital—anyway, it would be extremely helpful in order to provide more capital—that this should be done at the present time. It has been made quite clear that this decision will follow that taken at the Federal Review on European agriculture because the bank deals almost entirely with that financial problem. If by any chance that responsibility, as some of the Monckton Commissioners thought it should, goes to Northern Rhodesia, a similar decision on the bank will follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Salary Tax

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what demands have been received from those who pay salary tax in Hong Kong that salary taxes should be raised; and what reply has been made.

Mr. Iain Macleod: None, Sir.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Society of Friends in Hong Kong made representations in this sense to the Colonial Government? Has he not been informed about those representations in answer to my Question? Is it not worth while taking some notice when reputable citizens who pay Income Tax take the unusual course of saying that there is a need in that Territory for even higher tax?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member should not get so cross with me before he studies the matter. I know perfectly well that the Society of Friends has made representations, but, being a society, the Society of Friends is not liable to salary tax.

Mr. Thomson: The Secretary of State is evading the issue. The Society of Friends made these representations as individuals, saying that they as Income Tax payers felt that there was this need. Is he not to do something about this? Is he aware that the last time Income Tax was raised in Hong Kong was in 1950–51?

Mr. Macleod: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, far from evading the issue, I am answering the Question which he put on the Order Paper; if he wants me to answer a different Question, I will do that, too. Of course, notice has been taken of the representations which have been made by the Society of Friends, which has been informed that the Hong Kong Government's intentions about taxation can obviously be disclosed only to the Legislative Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Federation

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to the creation of a federation of Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar, and with what result; whether the granting of independence to each of these territories is being timed to assist in the establishment of a closer association between them; and whether federation with Rhodesia and Nyasaland has also been considered.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As regards the first two parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 15th November. As regards the third part of the Question, I do not think the time has come when it would be helpful to explore this wider horizon.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does not the Colonial Secretary agree that when democratic institutions have been established and the confidence of the African people has been obtained, they are prepared themselves to take the initiative towards a wider federation? Does not Mr. Nyerere's initiative prove just that point? In the event of the present Federal Review Conference failing to continue with full representation, will the right

hon. Gentleman consider calling a wider conference which will bring in Tanganyika and Kenya as well?

Mr. Macleod: The last part of that supplementary question is hypothetical. The Conference has been called to consider the Federation that exists.
I am extremely interested in the matter which the hon. Member mentions in the first part of his supplementary question and I am also extremely "cagey" about it. The House will know that it would not be wise for a pronouncement to be made from this Box that this East African federation must or should come about. I am deeply interested in it, but I very much hope that this would be a grass roots movement, coming to us from the people of the country.

Mr. Wall: As there has been so much loose talk about imposed federation, would it not be wiser to think along the lines of an economic association of the seven Territories, similar to the Common Market in Europe?

Mr. Macleod: That is a wider question which does not arise at the moment. As my hon. Friend knows, there are already close economic links among the four Territories of East Africa.

Mr. Brockway: While appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty at the moment, does he know that many of us hope that the discussions about Central African Federation will take the more constructive and bigger line of federation which will include both East and Central Africa?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the hon. Member will understand if I say that I note what he has said.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the views of Mr. Julius Nyerere and others engender the view that federation cannot take place until all constituent Territories have reached more or less the same stage of political development? Will he repudiate that idea on the analogy of the United States and other federations and accept the imaginative ideas of Mr. Julius Nyerere and proceed as soon as may be with the formation of federation in an incipient fashion?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that it is necessary for the component parts of


a federation to be at the same stage of development. A better example than that of my noble Friend is perhaps given by Nigeria where the three regions were at different stages and moved to different stages of their independence. I do not think that that need in any way be a prerequisite of the studying of the plans.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CAMEROONS

Plebiscite

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken in the British Cameroons to ensure that the voters understand the implications of the forthcoming plebiscite vote there.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Full statements of the implications of joining either Nigeria or the Cameroon Republic will be put before the voters in the Northern and Southern Cameroons during the next few weeks.

Mr. Tilney: Will that include a decision about what will happen over Commonwealth preference, which is so important, at least to the Southern Cameroons? Does my right hon. Friend agree that our Commonwealth friends in Nigeria will regard that aspect of the problem as very important?

Mr. Macleod: I agree about its importance, but I cannot guarantee that the details about the effect and implications of joining either will include that particular point, but I will see whether it is possible to give publicity to it.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether information will be given to the citizens of the Cameroons as to what exactly will take place following their decision, whether there will be a period during which the Southern Cameroons Government will be in a position to negotiate future arrangements with whichever Territory they decide to join?

Mr. Macleod: We are about to start the second campaign of enlightenment so that people will understand precisely the significance of the choice. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the formula which I worked out with the leaders of the Southern Cameroons some time ago about the Southern Cameroons joining

the Cameroon Republic, a formula which seems now to have some general acceptance.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Apes

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to maintain the apes on the Rock of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The apes are maintaining themselves without difficulty by their own efforts.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I originally put this Question down to the Prime Minister? In view of the good news, may I ask him for an assurance that this remaining symbol of the efficacy of Her Majesty's Administration will not at any time be reinforced either by a Member of the House of Lords or by the Prime Minister's relations?

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Visits by Members of Parliament

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities are available in his Department for information and consultation with Members of Parliament visiting dependant Territories.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Any Member visiting a Colonial Territory can obtain from my Department a wide range of documentary material. For many years, Sir William McLean, a former Member of this House, has acted in a voluntary capacity as Parliamentary Liaison Officer in the Information Department, and will be well known to many Members. In addition we are always ready to discuss Members' visits with them, both before they go and on their return.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are very grateful to Sir William McLean for the information he gives and sends to us on the subject of the dependant Territories? But as regards consultation, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when


there is a state of tension in a dependent Territory, it is desirable that hon. Members should refrain from controversial comments at any rate until they return to this country?

Mr. Macleod: With respect, I do not think that that is a matter for me. I do not myself sponsor visits or have anything to do with them except for letting the governors and others know of the visits of hon. Members of this House. I think that my duty in this is confined is giving as much information as possible to hon. Members, which I like to do, and if they like to come to see me before they go I will help them in any way that I can. I am also glad to see them on their return to get impressions of their visits.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that the Government provide a subsidy to at least one institution here to facilitate visits by hon. Members to Commonwealth and Colonial Territories? Instead of private organisations financing visits on behalf of Commonwealth Governments, would it not be preferable if Her Majesty's Government were to set aside a larger allocation so that hon. Members could visit these Territories and properly acquaint themselves on issues on which votes in this Parliament will be decisive?

Mr. Macleod: That is a very different question. I welcome as many visits as possible from hon. Members to the different Territories. To whatever extent these visits were helped by Her Majesty's Government, I have no doubt that private people in different capacities would also wish to arrange for visits, and I see no reason why they should not.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

United States Bases (Agreement)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the agreement reached with the Government of the United States of America regarding the future of the United States base at Chaguaramas.

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement in regard to the negotiations with the United States of America on the West Indies bases.

Mr. Iain Macleod: General agreement has been reached in an atmosphere of great cordiality on all matters relating to United States Bases in Trinidad and Tobago, St. Lucia, Antigua and Jamaica during the recent talks between representatives of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the West Indies and the units concerned. I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the communiqués issued at the close of the talks.

Mr. Brockway: I recognise the very considerable concessions which have been made by the Government of the United States of America, but can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any decision regarding the demand of the West Indian Territories for Chaguaramas as the capital of the Federation?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a matter that concerns mainly the Government of Trinidad and the Federal Government of the West Indies. If they are entirely satisfied, as they are, with the arrangements, details of which I have circulated, that is good enough far me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. HELENA

Senior Medical Officer (Salary)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what salary is paid to the Senior Medical Officer for St. Helena.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Up to £2,500 a year depending on qualifications and experience.

Mr. Hughes: Are there not difficulties in getting an experienced surgeon for this remote island? Has not the salary something to do with it? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving a higher starting salary to doctors who go there?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the salary has something to do with it. It was less than half this figure about two or three years ago. I believe that it is as a result of the offer of this amount that we have attracted a suitable candidate. I hope that he will go to the Colony early next year.

Surgical Treatment

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the arrangements now in force for a surgeon to visit St. Helena; and what provisions exist for dealing with an emergency case needing immediate surgical treatment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Arrangements are being made by the Governor for a surgeon to visit St. Helena as soon as practicable. While recognising that the present situation cannot be accepted for an indefinite period, I am satisfied that the Medical Officer in St. Helena has sufficient experience of surgery to enable him to deal with such emergencies as might arise.

Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it takes an experienced surgeon to get to St. Helena?

Mr. Macleod: I suppose it depends on how he travels. Offhand I do not know the answer, but I will find out.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that he takes four or five days to get there?

Mr. Macleod: That might well be so. The surgeon that I have in mind is in practice at Cape Town.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Civil Service (Expatriate Officers)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British expatriate officers who continue in the civil service of Tanganyika after that country obtains self-government will qualify for pension.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, if they are serving on permanent and pensionable terms. It is my sincere hope that the great majority of such officers will continue to serve in Tanganyika after it becomes self-governing.

Mr. Rankin: Just to make the position quite clear, may I take it that if these officers remain in the service of the new Government they will get the pensions they have earned, plus the salary for the job they are doing?

Mr. Macleod: Yes. I think that there is no doubt about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Mr. J. S. Douglas

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what employment was offered by the Nyasaland Government to Mr. James Sholto Douglas, a specialist in hydroponics; and why this offer was withdrawn.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am consulting the Governor of Nyasaland on this question and I will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with that reply? Is not he aware that this gentleman—a distinguished scientist—has been declared a prohibited immigrant by the Federal authorities? What action is the Colonial Secretary now taking—I am not asking what inquiries he is making—to ensure that this man, who has a contribution to make to the economy of Nyasaland, is allowed to perform his service to the people of Nyasaland and is not kept out of the country by the arbitrary action of the Federal authorities?

Mr. Macleod: I have seen newspaper cuttings about this case and have asked for information about it. That seems to me to be entirely the right thing to do. As the hon. Member knows, the question of the prohibition of immigrants is a matter for the Federal Government.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last part of his reply is coming increasingly under challenge, and that some of the Federal authorities are declaring that their responsibility in this matter is limited to taking executive action on the basis of the information and advice supplied by agents of Her Majesty's Government? Will he therefore assume some responsibility instead of shuffling it off on to the shoulders of the Federal authorities?

Mr. Macleod: The way in which the Question has been framed shows clearly the responsibility that I have for answering in this matter. I am asked a Question about the employment offered by the Nyasaland Government, not about the prohibition of immigrants—if, indeed, this man has been prohibited. On the question of the employment


offered, I have given the answer, which is that I am finding out from the Governor and will show the hon. Member when I have the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Vimy Farm, Corscombe

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will appoint a committee independent of his Department to inquire into the reliability of the information given him by the Dorset Agricultural Executive Committee as to the fulfilment by the landlord of Vimy Farm, Corscombe, Dorset, of his obligations to supply fixed equipment adequate for the economical management of the farm.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): No, Sir. As stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on 5th May, the complaints made by the tenant of this farm have been gone into exhaustively in the past. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by inquiring into them again.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Member aware, first, that the allegation made by the tenant is that the county executive committee, under the influence of the landlord, has refused to recommend that the landlord should be obliged to provide the necessary fixed equipment; secondly, that anyone visiting the farm can see for himself that that equipment has not been provided, and, thirdly, that there has never been an inquiry impartial in the sense that it was unconnected with the parties against whom the allegations were made?

Mr. Vane: I do not think that the hon. and learned Member is quite right in his last point, which is the most important one. After this grievance was reviewed on numerous occasions it was considered in 1959 by the Agricultural Land Tribunal, which is certainly entirely independent of the Agriculture Departments, and the Tribunal rejected the tenant's claim.

Small Farmer Scheme

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will recommend the payment of the small farmer subsidy and other relevant subsidies and grants to farmers who voluntarily amalgamate their holdings for the purposes of these subsidies or grants.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): The assistance provided under the Small Farmer Scheme and other improvement schemes is already given to farmers who amalgamate their holdings, provided that the amalgamation results in the holding being run as a single farm business which satisfies the conditions of the different schemes.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend saying that if two farms, on amalgamation, total more than 100 acres they will qualify?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The amalgamated unit must fall within the bounds laid down.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more amalgamation and voluntary co-operation among small units, say, of 80 acres each, would be in the interests of the farming community? Will not he consider this question again?

Mr. Soames: That goes far wider than the Small Farmer Scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Farm Buildings (Design)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Minister for Science, what steps he will take to promote the improvement of the design of farm buildings; and what co-operation there has been between his Department and the Council of Industrial Design.

Mr. Soames: The Agricultural Research Council set up the Farm Buildings Unit to assist architects and others in designing farm buildings so that they are best fitted for their purpose. There is close co-operation between the unit


and the Council of Industrial Design and the unit is, I know, well aware of the views which have been expressed on behalf of the Council of Industrial Design.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he agree that many farm buildings are both less efficient and less well sited than they would be if proper advantage were taken of farm design techniques? Will he do all he can to ensure that we have the highest standards in future?

Mr. Soames: I am all for having the highest possible standards. My officers have instructions to do all they can, in their advisory work, to encourage better siting and design. It is very much a matter of educating opinion, and in this respect we work closely both with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Council of Industrial Design.

Bread and Flour (Committee's Recommendations)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to restrict the making of extravagant claims of weight-reducing and energy-giving properties by the advertisers of certain brands of bread and bread substitutes, in view of the criticism and recommendations published by the Food Standards Committee in its Report on Bread and Flour.

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Food Standards Committee with regard to the ingredients of bread, advertising descriptions, and claims of bread manufacturers.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in view of the recent recommendations of the Food Standards Committee on speciality breads for which claims are made that they are protein enriched, or starch reduced, or described as slimming bread, he will make regulations forbidding the advertising of claims of this nature.

Mr. Soames: The interests concerned have been given until 17th February, 1961, to make representations about the Report on Bread and Flour. I shall give

full consideration to any representations received before deciding whether to implement the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Minister will be aware of what one can only describe as lying propaganda by the manufacturers of these products. This was brought to the attention of the House a long time ago. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to "the interests concerned" does he mean the manufacturers, advertising agents and other advertising bodies? Can he give an assurance that, if their representations do not satisfy him that the Committee has made a mistake, he will take drastic action?

Mr. Soames: Representations are open to a very wide range of interests. The House will understand that I must leave myself free to consider them before I make a statement.

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman has the evidence.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister make it clear that members of the general public are also permitted to make representations to him before 17th February on the contents and recommendations of this Report?

Mr. Soames: The recommendations are coming primarily from organised bodies.

Dr. Stross: Does not the Minister consider that misrepresentation of fact of this kind is grossly unfair to the public? Does he think it is enough merely that representations should be made? Why should he not help actively in the matter?

Mr. Soames: I will. I have received the Report and it has been published. I have given until 17th February for representations to be made, and I will then make up my mind on the matter and make a statement.

Dried Foods

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the interest displayed in the exhibition of dried foods in the Upper Waiting Hall, if he will arrange for a limited number of hon. Members to sample a meal composed entirely of this food; and if he will give details of the menu.

Mr. Vane: No, Sir. The second part of the Question therefore does not arise.

Mr. Dodds: The Parliamentary Secretary has been co-operative in the past. Will he say why this cannot be done in a limited way? Is it because he fears for the health of Members of Parliament, and that criticism will be made, or has he and his Department the utmost confidence in the products from the factory at Aberdeen?

Mr. Vane: It is not a question of lack of confidence. We carry out a number of food tests, and while we try to do many helpful things for different people, our title of Ministry of Food must not be taken to mean that we run a restaurant service.

Fishing Industry (Fleck Committee's Report)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now received the Report of the Fleck Committee on the fishing industry.

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir; and I am arranging for publication as soon as possible.

Mr. Jeger: I thank the right hon. Member for that reply. Will he make arrangements for it to be widely known in the industry and, after it has had sufficient time for consideration, will he arrange for a debate on this subject without having to be prodded about it for the next few years?

Mr. Soames: I hope to be able to publish this Report some time next month—probably towards the end of the month. The industry will then be deeply interested. As to a debate in this House, as the hon. Member knows, that is for the usual channels to decide.

Cereals

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation to establish a marketing board for cereals.

Mr. Soames: Permissive legislation is already in being. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, the initiative for seeking to establish such a board rests with the producers.

Mr. de Freitas: If the producers—that is to say, the farmers—and the consumers and the Treasury are all agreed about the advantages of this and if they come forward with a scheme, will the Minister set up a board, even if the millers do not like it?

Mr. Soames: It is not a question of what somebody likes or does not like. There are well, known, processes and machinery for setting up a board, and that machinery must be operated. If such formal proposals were made, I should give them earnest consideration.

Mr. Prior: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we shall be very nearly self-supporting in barley next year? Will he do his best to advertise that fact so that no merchant buys foreign barley this year for delivery next year?

Mr. Soames: In view of the weather we had this autumn it is clear that, with the small amount of winter wheat able to be drilled, there will be a greater barley production, if there is a normal season next year, than there has been this year.

National Farmers' Union (Talks)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his talks with the National Farmers' Union on a long-term policy for agriculture.

Mr. Soames: I hope that a White Paper reporting the outcome of these talks will be published next Monday.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that National Farmers' Union branches in the country have information on this which is denied to Members of this House? Surely it is quite wrong that members of the National Farmers' Union should have information which is denied to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Soames: It is not a question of information being denied. These were talks between the Government and the union and those talks would not have been realistic had they been between one member of the union and the Government. The dissemination of information has been to a minimum extent and I think it praiseworthy how little has leaked out.

Mr. Peart: Is the Minister able to say that in the White Paper he will also cover talks with the N.F.U. over our policy towards the Common Market?

Mr. Soames: That was one of the topics which was discussed with the union, and what was discussed will be the subject of the White Paper.

European Common Market

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what study has been made by his Dapartment of the problems which would be raised by Great Britain's entry into a European Common Market in agriculture; what steps have been taken to find ways and means of overcoming the obstables; and if he will publish a White Paper on the subject.

Mr. Soames: The agricultural and other problems requiring a solution if closer European unity is to be achieved have been under careful study, and I cannot add to the statement of Her Majesty's Government's position which was made by my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, on 4th November. The answer to the third part of the Question is "No, Sir".

Mr. Holt: May we expect that at a reasonably early date the Government will issue a White Paper on the subject?

Mr. Soames: I cannot say about the future, but at the moment we have no intention of so doing.

Farm Improvement Scheme (Machinery Syndicates)

Mr. de Ferranti: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the long-term advantages of machinery syndicates, when he will reach a decision on how the Farm Improvement Scheme can be extended to cover buildings required by such syndicates.

Mr. Soames: It would not be possible within the existing Statute to extend the Farm Improvement Scheme in this way.

Mr. de Ferranti: Is the Minister aware that a favourable decision could do much to increase farmers' incomes, and that, furthermore, in the long run it might even save the taxpayers some money? Will he therefore try to reach a decision as soon as possible?

Mr. Soames: I am aware of the problem underlying my hon. Friend's Question, but in the Question he referred to the Farm Improvement Scheme and I answered that it is not possible within the existing Statute to extend that.

White Fish Subsidy

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the white fish subsidy is not paid to fishermen who retail their own fish rather than sell it wholesale.

Mr. Vane: The purpose of the white fish subsidy is to give assistance to the fisherman, who normally sells fish at wholesale prices. If a fisherman is able to obtain retail prices for his catch he is in a different financial position and has not the same need of assistance.

Swine Fever, Bangor-on-Dee

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the results of the investigation into the disease which has led to the destruction of a herd of nearly 2,000 pigs at the farm of Mr. Coggins, Bangor-on-Dee.

Mr. Vane: Swine fever was confirmed in this herd on 8th December. When I have full details of the outbreak, I will write to the hon. Member.

Mrs. White: Is the Minister aware that this herd has been a registered herd for four years, taking the vaccines supplied by his Department and, in spite of vaccination, 600 pigs died and the rest had to be slaughtered? Will he assure us that a very full investigation indeed will be made in these circumstances?

Mr. Vane: This herd is a very well-known one, but I think there would be little purpose in trying to comment before I am in possession of all the information.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Compensation Payments)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that payments of compensation to farmers whose herds are slaughtered because of foot-and-mouth disease are made in such a way that they do not become subject to tax.

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. It is difficult to see how a different system of making these payments could affect tax liability. Livestock are properly to be considered, in most instances, as revenue assets, both when they are bought and when they are disposed of, but the charging of tax on compensation receipts is matched by treating the cost of replacing the herd as an allowable expense. As regards permanent stock, such as a dairy herd, for which this may not be the full answer, I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1953. This is summarised on page 13 of "Farmers' Bookkeeping and Income Tax", published by my Department in conjunction with the Inland Revenue Department.

Mr. Peyton: Could my right hon. Friend consider the situation which arises if a herd is slaughtered and compensation paid in one financial year and replacement of stock takes place the following year? It is quite ridiculous, and fantastic results follow, and the compensation is taxed? Surely that is not what compensation is given for? Will he not use his influence to keep the rapacious hawks of the Inland Revenue authorities away from this compensation?

Mr. Soames: If a herd is slaughtered, that has an effect on the valuation of the property at the end of the financial year and that affects the tax situation. This is a complicated issue in which the Inland Revenue is primarily interested, but much of it is set out in this booklet which I recommend my hon. Friend to read.

Strontium 90

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of strontium 90 is contained in wheat and other foodstuffs imported into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Vane: The latest figures available for the strontium 90 content of imported wheat and other foodstuffs are those given in Report No. 3 by the Agricultural Research Council Radiobiological Laboratory on Strontium 90 in Human Diet in the United Kingdom, 1959. A copy of this Report, which was published on the 30th September this year, is in

the Library of the House. It would be misleading to quote these figures without the explanatory text.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister tell us the comparative figures for food produced in this country?

Mr. Vane: As I said in my original reply, without looking at the Report and seeing the whole range of figures quoted and the conclusions thereon, it would be merely misleading to try to compare figures selected at random.

Mrs. Braddock: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us if it is a fact that the figures produced by the Ministry of Agriculture show that there is five times the amount of strontium 90 in wheat imported from the Soviet Union as there is in wheat from this country?

Mr. Vane: That is correct. As the hon. Member has quoted it I can say it is correct, but I think it misleading to accept that as necessarily adding a great deal to the strontium 90 in our diet. Hon. Members should look at the conclusions in this Report, by which they will see that on average the content of strontium 90 in our diet is something like one-twentieth or less of the permitted amount.

Mr. Prior: Is not that a reason for stopping the import of wheat and barley from Russia?

Mr. Vane: That is another question, but the wheat imported from Russia is an extremely small fraction of the wheat consumed in this country.

Oregon Blue Tag Ryegrass Seed

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the nature of the evidence he has received about the unsuitability of Certified Oregon Blue Tag perennial ryegrass seed for use in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Vane: The reports I have received on the performance of this seed came from official trial centres in the United Kingdom. They provide conflicting evidence on the suitability of the seed for use over here.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that a lot of this certified seed came into this country in 1954, and that there were admittedly conflicting reports about it,


but that there were reports in its favour from, among other places, the N.I.A.B. at Cambridge and the seed-testing station in Scotland? As the evidence is conflicting, would not my hon. Friend do as well to follow the example of his right hon. Friend with Charollais and introduce some of this seed to try it?

Mr. Vane: Certain of this seed was imported in 1954, which was a season of great shortage. As I have said, the evidence about this seed is conflicting. It is true that reports from Scotland were the least unfavourable. It is suggested that before any general import, further trials should take place, which seems to be a wise course.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the new year, he will invite the Prime Ministers of the Six and Seven to meet under his chairmanship to discuss ways of resolving their joint problems.

Mr. Marsh: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider inviting the Heads of Government of the Six and the Seven to confer together with a view to finding ways of resolving their joint problems.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I will certainly bear this possibility in mind; but I am not convinced that this is the moment for Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in calling a meeting of the heads of Government concerned. I believe that the best approach to these problems is that described by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in the debate on the address on 4th November.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not the Prime Minister aware of the tremendous danger to British industry from the growing strength of the Common Market? Would not it be a good idea if he were to indulge in his well-known love of Summitry at a level where he might have a better chance of achieving good and practical results?

The Prime Minister: I will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Holt: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the appropriate

Government Departments are studying the problems involved in any question of our entry into the Common Market, because a recent reply by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food confirms a feeling that the Government are not studying these problems yet?

The Prime Minister: I think that would be a wrong conclusion. A great deal of work is going on and many valuable discussions are taking place with many other countries.

Mr. Gaitskell: Cannot the Prime Minister enlighten us a little further? What sort of talks are going on? What are the prospects of an early agreement between the Six and the Seven?

The Prime Minister: I answered the original Question, which was whether I would summon a meeting of heads of Government. That is a big decision to make, and I do not think that at the present moment it would be a right one.

Mr. Gaitskell: Surely the Prime Minister is briefed to answer a few supplementary questions. One of them, an important one, is, what are the prospects of agreement on the basis of the present talks?

The Prime Minister: I am not briefed to reply to questions that have little relation to the subject of the first Question. As to the prospects, I would say that very great progress has been made in the conversations we have had, and I am very hopeful that ultimately we shall arrive at a solution of this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister the nature of his reply to the proposals from the Prime Minister of India that the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation should be enlarged.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from Mr. Nehru relating to proposals for enlarging the Security Council.

The Prime Minister: It would not be in accordance with the normal conventions for me to disclose what passes between Commonwealth Prime Ministers and myself.

Mr. Wyatt: Surely the Prime Minister has some views on the proposal of the Prime Minister of India that the United Nations Security Council must be made more representative? Cannot he tell the House the views he may have about it? He is quite willing to think aloud to American journalists. Cannot he tell us something?

The Prime Minister: The Question does not ask for my views. It asks what communications I have had with another Prime Minister of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister of India said in the Parliament of India that the basic change required in the United Nations was in the constitution of the Security Council to make it more in tune with world realities, particularly in Asia and Africa. That is an extremely important statement. Cannot the Prime Minister say what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: Not by question and answer following a Question like this.

Mr. G. Brown: In his previous reply the Prime Minister said that the Question did not ask for his views but for the nature of the communications he received. May I draw attention to what is contained in Question No. 42 on the Order Paper? It is:
To ask the Prime Minister what was the nature of his reply …
to a communication received. That indeed is the basis for asking what are his views. Therefore, I repeat the question of my hon. Friend. May we not be let into the secret?

The Prime Minister: And I repeat my reply that they were confidential between two Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Brown: Is it a secret club?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Zilliacus.

Mr. Brown: It is secret.

The Prime Minister: No, confidential. There is a system of confidence—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As a result of an audible interruption we have become out of order. I called the hon. Member for Gorton to ask Question No. 46.

The Prime Minister: It is so complicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES FORCES, UNITED KINGDOM (ALERT)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister what information was received, and what action was taken, by the Government Departments concerned, under the dual-control system in connection with the recent alert of United States forces in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 29th November to the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and Lanark (Mrs. Hart).

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Prime Minister aware that his state of euphoria about the absence of any effective control system is not shared by many millions of people in this country, or by many of my hon. Friends? Will not he take steps to have some kind of effective control instituted so that we at least know when the Americans have an alarm, as they did at Thule when the moon set off the electronic equipment? Otherwise we may be plunged into war by complete accident.

The Prime Minister: No British Forces and no United States Forces in this country were alerted on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will consult other heads of Government with a view to preparing for a World Economic Conference early in 1961; and if, at this conference, he will make proposals for an expansion of trade and the building of economic co-operation throughout the world.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. While I fully sympathise with the objective which the hon. Member has in mind, I am not convinced of the usefulness of the method he proposes. There is already ample provision for international consultation on these problems.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Though I am a firm believer in the United Nations, may I ask if the Prime Minister does not agree that it has failed in regard to organising world economic affairs? Does the Prime Minister remember that he himself advocated this suggestion several times between the two wars when the conditions were not ready for such a conference? Does he not agree that world conditions now demand such a conference?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have made great advances since that time in the organisation of international institutions and international consultations, but I am wholly in sympathy with what I think underlies the hon. Member's thought, that we must find a way to increase the basic credit on which the world's production can be maximised.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what discussions are taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States about the dollar crisis and the need for some co-ordination of interest-rate policies between the two countries?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Member will understand that the exact timing of such conversations is a matter of some delicacy.

Mr. Gaitskell: If, presumably, the Prime Minister is referring to the American election and its outcome, can he say whether he will take an early opportunity of instituting talks with the United States Government, the new Government, on this issue as soon as it comes into office?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly take an early opportunity to respond to talks which I hope may be proposed.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if, at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, he will propose an expansion of Commonwealth economic co-operation and a Commonwealth approach to the need for increased world trade.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to enter into commitments as to what I may or may not say at the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, where discussion is both free and confidential.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the countries making up the Commonwealth have been most loyal to the Commonwealth? Has not the time arrived when Britain should take the initiative in cementing that loyalty by increasing Commonwealth co-operation and at the same time bringing about a Commonwealth approach to world problems such as is proposed in these two Questions?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I would agree entirely with what the hon. Member has said. It seems to be a most irreproachable proposition.

Mr. C. Osborne: Would my right hon. Friend make it quite clear, both to the Commonwealth and to foreign powers, that on economic matters our greatest need is to export a great deal more and to import less, as is shown by the rather terrifying figures issued this morning by the Board of Trade?

The Prime Minister: I think I would agree that the interests of the free world are to increase the total trade which passes between all the countries of the world. What we have to do is not to drift into restrictionist policies when the need is for world expansion.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE PRIME MINISTER (QUESTIONS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now arrange to alter the Order of Questions so that questions addressed to him are answered at 3.15 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

The Prime Minister: There has been a marked response to the appeal which you, Sir, made on 5th December. On the three available occasions since then Questions addressed to me have always been reached by 3.15; and there has been an improvement in the total number of Questions answered. I think, therefore, that we might leave the matter for the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this afternoon eleven Questions have not been asked and, if the hon. Members who put them down had been present and asked them, he would have been excluded from our deliberations? Is he also aware that,


having heard some of his Answers, I am wondering now whether it is worth while asking Questions of him at all?

The Prime Minister: I had a sort of feeling that the right hon. Member would make a rather caustic end to his supplementary question, but they are all accustomed to him over there.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that the more time the Prime Minister has the less information he gives us? Should we not let him go back to the old-style arrangement whereby we got one or two Answers from him?

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman regards my remark as caustic, is he aware that he has not heard anything yet from me?

The Prime Minister: I have a very long experience of the right hon. Member.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Prime Minister consider that once every six weeks he should be No. 1 and in that case it would at least save us from the Secretary of State for Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what would happen to the hon. Member's supplementary questions which are so carefully prepared over such weeks of study.

ETHIOPIA (SITUATION)

Mr. G. Brown: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the safety of British citizens and British-protected persons in Ethiopia.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes Sir. I have received information from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Addis Ababa within the past two hours that fighting has broken out in Addis Ababa. As an immediate measure the Ambassador is admitting to the Embassy compound any British subjects who wish to take refuge there.
It is too soon to say whether it will be necessary to provide facilities for the evacuation of British subjects and protected persons. In the meantime we are taking urgent steps to make the necessary transport facilities available, including aircraft if this should be required. We

are, of course, in constant touch with the Embassy.
There are about 900 British subjects in Ethiopia as a whole, of whom about 440 are of United Kingdom origin and about 300 from other Commonwealth countries. Of those of United Kingdom origin, nearly all, about 90 per cent. are in Addis Ababa itself.
Communications outside Addis Ababa have been interrupted, but we have no reason at present to believe that there is any danger to the comparatively small number of British subjects and protected persons living outside Addis Ababa.

Mr. Brown: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he can give us any idea of the scale of the fighting? Will he keep the House in touch with the developments?

Mr. Heath: In his message the Ambassador described it as moderate small arms and mortar firing. That is all the information that we have at the moment. I will keep the House informed.

Mr. B. Harrison: Has my right hon. Friend any information whether this is an internal revolt or whether other countries outside Ethiopia are concerned in it?

Mr. Heath: We have no evidence of outside interference.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for the next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 19TH DECEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]:
Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when the Second Report from the Public Accounts Committee, 1959–60, will be debated until Seven o'clock, on an Amendment to take note of this Report with special reference to Development and Production of Guided Weapons.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on an Amendment to take note of the Fourth Report from the Estimates Committee, 1959–60, relating to the Colonial Office.
TUESDAY, 20TH DECEMBER—Report and Third Reading of the Betting Levy Bill.
Second Reading of the Human Tissue Bill.
Report on the National Health Service Supplementary Estimates.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST DECEMBER—It is proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., that Questions be taken until 12 noon and that Mr. Speaker be empowered to adjourn the House at 5 o'clock without putting any Question.
We shall then adjourn for the Christmas Recess until Tuesday, 24th January, 1961.

Mr. Gaitskell: When do the Government expect to announce the outcome of the Stedeford Report on transport?

Mr. Butler: It is hoped to make an announcement in the form of a White Paper before the House rises.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why it has not yet been found possible to find any time for the Motion standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends—about 80-odd of them? [HON. MEMBERS: "Odd."] Is he aware that the Motion has been on the Order Paper for nearly three weeks and that if time cannot be found before the Christmas Recess it will have been standing on the Order Paper for about two months at least before it is disposed of? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that is satisfactory?
[That this House places on record its profound regret that the Secretary of State for the Home Department failed to advise Her Majesty the Queen to exercise Her Royal Prerogative of mercy in the cases of Francis Forsyth and Norman Harris, the first of whom was only a month or two over eighteen years of age and the other twenty-three years of age, both of whom were said by the learned counsel who prosecuted them to have had no intention to kill, and one of whom, namely, Norman Harris, was admitted to

have struck no blow and was not present when any fatal act of violence was committed.]

Mr. Butler: I have already said that this Motion raises very important issues, but I have nothing to add to what I said last week, namely, that there is not time to take this Motion before Christmas. What I said before has proved to be correct, and I cannot depart from that position.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Arising out of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Transport, on Tuesday, leaked the story, which was widely published in the Press, that the White Paper will be published on Tuesday or Wednesday? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm on which day it will be published? Is it being delayed deliberately to make it impossible for Parliament to discuss the future of the railways before the end of January? How much longer are the Government determined to keep the railways in agonising uncertainty as to their future?

Mr. Butler: I cannot announce the exact date, but it will be one day early next week when the White Paper is ready. The question of preventing the House from discussing it does not arise. The whole point of publishing it before Christmas is to give plenty of time for hon. Members and the country to look at the plan which we have taken the trouble to prepare and which is of a detailed character. After the House resumes there will be opportunity to have full discussions on this matter before any question of action arises.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Could an economic debate be arranged for an early date after the Recess under such terms on the Order Paper as will enable taxation to be discussed in relation to expenditure?

Mr. Butler: We have had one discussion on economic affairs, but I will certainly consider what my noble Friend says in the light of the press of business after we have returned.

Dr. Stross: Has the Leader of the House noticed that there is a Motion on the Order Paper referring to backstage conditions in theatres? In view of the


fact that he is no longer responsible for this subject, but has handed it over to the Minister of Labour, will he realise that I am not asking him to give time to debate the Motion before Christmas but asking him at least to speak to the Minister of Labour and to see that in the provisions of a Bill now being drafted we can provide some justice for these people?
[That this House deplores the fact that many theatres offer inadequate facilities, backstage, for actors and actresses either for washing or lavatory accommodation; is disturbed to note that out of 156 theatres examined, 78 per cent. had neither baths or showers. 26 per cent. were without wash basins and six of the theatres examined were without a water closet or lavatory of any kind; and urges the Minister of Labour to take prompt action, and issue regulations following appropriate legislation.]

Mr. Butler: I will discuss this matter in the wings with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in accordance with the usual custom, on which day he proposes to table the Motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess? Is he aware that this will have considerable importance, in view of the fact that there are a number of matters, such as the political situation in Laos, in the Congo and in other territories for which we share some responsibility, on which we shall expect the Government to make a statement before we adjourn?

Mr. Butler: At least one of those subjects is arising on the Adjournment. All I can say is that we shall table the Motion according to precedent on one of the days before we adjourn next week.

Mr. Donnelly: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)? Is the leader of the House aware that he invited my hon. Friend to put down this Motion on this very grave issue? How does he reconcile his inability to find time for a debate with his invitation to my hon. Friend to put the Motion down, because it was a very grave constitutional matter which the House of Commons has no opportunity of discussing in retrospect? It is life and death.

Mr. Butler: I was not aware that the situation was exactly as the hon. Member has framed it. Perhaps he could discuss it with me. I do not quite understand his interpretation. I have no doubt about the seriousness of the matter. The ability to discuss it is thwarted only by the lack of opportunity.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is assuring the House that at the earliest convenient opportunity he will find time to discuss this Motion?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I can give no guarantee.

Mr. Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of making time available after the Christmas Recess to debate the signing of the O.E.C.D. Convention which took place in Paris yesterday?

Mr. Butler: I will examine that and consult my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the pressure of events and various topics which have been brought to his attention, is the right hon. Gentleman likely to consider any alteration in the date of the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. Kershaw: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT, in which I raised the important and topical matter of the enlistment of Fijians into the British Army? The Answers have been transposed, thus making it appear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War was talking nonsense, which I am sure would be undesirable. Might the record be put straight?*

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member having drawn attention to the matter, it will be put straight.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

* [Note: This correction has been made.]

SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

FLOODS

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, noting with concern the widespread distress and damage caused by recent floods, and believing them to be a national responsibility, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give all necessary help to those individuals and local authorities particularly affected; to establish a national fund for the relief of distress caused by floods or similar disasters; and to devise adequate measures to prevent flood damage in future".
This is the second Supply day which, under our present rules, is made available before Christmas. It is a feature of that procedure that we cannot conveniently ask the House to reach a decision formally on this Motion. For that reason I wish, I hope at the appropriate moment, to secure the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion. That is a procedural matter. I hope, and indeed expect, that the Government will be prepared to take the content of the Motion very seriously indeed, and that they will express their agreement with it.
Our Amendment begins by noting with concern the widespread distress and damage caused by recent floods. That part of the Amendment will, no doubt, commend itself to universal agreement. Flooding has been widespread. More than 30 counties have been affected by the floods that have descended on the country in the last seven or eight weeks. There are some ways in which we can make a statistical or monetary estimate of how much damage they have inflicted. Examples of that damage come to us from all over the country. On the Treforest industrial estate, for example, the damage is estimated at £5 or £6 million and the factories there are likely to be out of production for several weeks. That involves a further loss.
The National Farmers' Union estimates the loss on farms in a number of Welsh counties at over £1 million. The City of Bath has a record of loss totalling over £½ million. If we go on throughout the 30 counties, what total of damage shall we reach? We do not yet know. I believe that it will prove to be a figure well in excess of £30 million. It is well to set a figure such as that against what may be said about the formidable cost of flood prevention works. I do not deny that capital works aimed at preventing flooding are expensive.
However, we have to notice that, although flooding occurs only occasionally, and sometimes unpredictably, when it occurs the bill, even for monetary loss, is a very heavy one indeed. We should notice, too, that the effect of a disaster of this kind can be cumulative. If there is heavy rain at one season of the year it means that for months afterwards the higher ground, which would otherwise have been porous, is saturated. If heavy rain falls again in a few months' time it pours straight down to flood the lower levels.
We are now only in December. The months of January and February are ahead of us and there will possibly be very heavy rainfall during those months. On monetary grounds alone, therefore, we cannot underestimate this disaster. It is not only a question of damage in the sense that can be measured in terms of money. There is the distress, the misery and unhappiness caused when a home and its contents are wrecked. That home and contents are not only something on which money has been spent; they are things on which affection has been lavished. After the flood has subsided there comes the dreary and depressing task of drying out, clearing away the dirt and being left with a home that is sometimes an unhappy parody of what there was before the disaster occurred.
That is the experience of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens at present. In addition, we have to note, with great regret, the loss of life. On this occasion the loss of life was mercifully small, but the House should remember that in many localities that was due solely to the hour of day or night at which the disaster occurred. In more than one place if the disaster had occurred at only a few hours


distance in time it would have occurred not in deserted streets and open spaces, but in streets thronged with people. The nation might today have been mourning a very heavy death roll.
We have to bear in mind the fearful suddenness with which such disasters can occur. One moment a street may be normal, with people going about their business. The next moment a torrent of water, 7 ft. or 8 ft. high, may be tearing down that street from end to end. It recalls the disaster described in Jean Ingelow's famous poem:
The heart had scarcely time to beat
Before the wave was at our feet.
The feet had hardly time to flee
Before the wave was at the knee,
And all the world was in the sea.
That is the kind of thing we are discussing vast monetary damage, widespread distress and constant peril that might easily strike again with more terrible results.
In our Amendment we say those are things which are a national responsibility. There is a national responsibility not only because of the bond of common humanity that unites us to those of our fellow citizens in the areas affected, but for a direct and practical reason. There are numerous features of modern life which produce the result that things which are advantageous to some of us increase the peril of flood to others. May I give one example of that. Last summer, I spent my holiday in the Isles of Scilly. As I motored to Penzance I drove over high ground in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. I drove over good, firm roads. The existence of those good, firm roads over land that was once porous and absorbed water is one factor adding to the torrents of water that descend into the lower areas
That single example has to be multiplied many hundreds of times all over the country. Anyone who benefits from the existence of firm roads, from asphalt, from sure foundations to any building in which he is interested, shares some measure of responsibility for what happens in areas that are flooded. The same is true of the drainage of certain fields. The very high degree of success which attends drainage operations in some parts of the country, which saves fields from being waterlogged, means that water is carried more swiftly into

rivers which are sometimes incapable of coping with the burden.
The whole nation is concerned in this matter. That is why we are asking the Government to give all the necessary help to those individuals and to the local authorities concerned. In our Amendment we call upon the Government to
give all necessary help to … individuals",
That is the more important because of the limited help which they can obtain from insurance against flood. In general, insurance against flood is available at rates which people can afford to pay only in districts where floods are extremely improbable. Those who are most likely to need to take that precaution may find that it is either impossible or beyond their means to do so.
I will quote one example which illustrates that. In Exeter, the damage at present is reckoned at £200,000. Only a few days ago it was being estimated in the newspapers at £130,000. A more recent estimate is £200,000. That is a warning to us of how very great the total bill may prove to be compared with any estimates we can make at the moment. The Mayor of Exeter says that probably 90 per cent. of the householders who suffered, and 50 per cent. of the shops which suffered, were not covered by insurance at all.
The total bill of £200,000 for damage in that city alone is probably more than will be raised by the appeal fund for the whole of the County of Devon. It is, therefore, clear that, as between the total loss, on the one hand, and what can be met by insurance or appeals, on the other, there is a large gap which the Government are called upon to fill.
I was glad to notice that the Mayor of Exeter also said that he expects that there will be help from the Government towards the Exeter fund. He went on to say that, even so, he must redouble his appeals to members of the public to contribute to the fund. I do not doubt that other men in similar positions in afflicted areas will say much the same.
That same picture of a gap appears if we refer back to what happened in 1953, when there were flood disasters on the East Coast. The total damage on that occasion was estimated at £50 million, of which insurance met only £5½ million. The fund raised by the Lord Mayor of


London met £5 million. The Government provided £2 million. That left a gap of £37 million which either fell on the people who, in the first instance, suffered the damage, or had to be met—we know not to what degree—by what the Minister has called the "fount of private giving".
We shall be told that the Government have given a general assurance that they stand behind what can be met by insurance and local funds. That has been said to us on more than one occasion when we have debated this matter. In that connection, I will draw the attention of the Minister and the House to an item in the Western Morning News of 14th December. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) told the House recently that his constituents were very generally satisfied with the Government assurance that they would come to their help. I am sorry to say that at a meeting of the Taunton Town Council this remark of the hon. Gentleman's was described by one councillor as the most ridiculous statement which could have been made on the flood situation. He and other councillors went on to express a considerable degree of local dissatisfaction and uncertainty.
It is fair to add that at the same meeting of the council the most complimentary and kindly references were made to the hon. Member for Taunton, so, clearly, this remark was not made with any personal malice against him. It was directed not so much against him as against the Government. The speakers at the council meeting went on to express the earnest hope that the Government would make a direct contribution to Taunton's relief fund, as, indeed, the Mayor of Exeter says that they are making to his fund.
Although I could go on quoting particular examples—Taunton, Exeter, and the rest—in the end it is obvious that this is a nation-wide matter. That is why some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have urged the establishment, as is mentioned in the Amendment, of a national fund to deal with the situation which can be created by flood or similar disaster.
We make that suggestion partly for the reason I have already urged, namely, that everyone in the nation shares some degree of responsibility for helping those

who are immediately hit by floods; partly because there is, as the figures for 1953 show, an undoubted gap between what can be met by private benevolence, appeals or insurance; and partly because we want to assure all those individuals and families who have to seek help that they can seek it as of right and need not feel that they are asking for charity. These are powerful reasons for the establishment of a national fund of this kind.
I have in mind a fund the moneys of which would be provided substantially by the Government, though it would be open to private individuals of their own good will and benevolence to make contributions of their own to the national fund. It is right that I should take up one or two of the objections which the Parliamentary Secretary made to this proposal in a recent debate. It was suggested that the establishment of such a fund would dry up the fount of private giving. I do not believe that. I do not think that the Government believe it, either. If it was a valid argument, the Minister, in effect, would already have dried up the fount of private giving by the general assurance he has given.
Moreover, when a disaster of this kind occurs people who are more fortunate feel moved to express the sense of their own good fortune and gratitude for their own deliverance by making a contribution. That motive will still remain even if the Government are prepared to fulfil their responsibilities in the way we suggest.
The second objection was that if there was a national fund it would be very difficult to adjudicate on the nature of claims and the extent to which they should be met in every locality. A national fund would not mean that every claim in every part of the country had to be assessed and judged by a central agency. I picture such a national fund making grants to local funds whenever disaster occurred, and it would be for the local people to assess how the money at their disposal could be most fairly and justly applied.
It was suggested, thirdly, that the establishment of a national fund would involve difficulties and formalities of audit, and so on. There is very little in that argument. The pledge that the Government have already made will


involve them, quite properly, in a Supplementary Estimate. That will involve a certain amount of clerical and Departmental work. If a national fund was permanently established under agreed rules, there would be, in the long run, a saving of administrative time.
When the Parliamentary Secretary raised these objections it seemed to me that he was giving us merely an interim reply and implying that the Government had not yet made up their mind. I hope that by now they have made up their mind, and that they have made it up in favour of the establishment of a national fund.
Our Amendment mentions help not only to individuals, but to local authorities. On this aspect I will content myself with one question. We have an assurance that any authority which has imposed on it an unreasonable rate burden because of disasters will receive help from the central Government. Can the Minister tell us what will be his criterion of an unreasonable rate burden? Can he relieve some of the local authorities of their present uncertaintly as to whether that undertaking will mean anything practical for them or not?
Beyond the question of helping those who have suffered, there is the perhaps more hopeful question of taking precautions, both in the short term and in the long, against a recurrence of these disasters. I most earnestly hope that neither the Government spokesmen nor any other hon. Member who takes part in this debate will try to ride away from this question by solemnly proving to us that the Government cannot control the weather, and that absolute 100 per cent. safety against any damage from flood would be impossible of attainment.
We all know that, but, if I may say so, the damaging admission made the other day that the Government cannot control the weather will give a shock to the more naïve and devoted admirers of the Prime Minister. Still, the cat is out of the bag, and we all recognise that. Nevertheless, the fact that we cannot absolutely rule out a disaster is not the slightest reason at all for not taking every reasonable precaution against it. No one can say with certainty that there will never be anyone anywhere who will suffer from fire, but that is no reason for neglecting adequate fire precautions.
Let us look at the short-term precautions—designed not actually to prevent flooding, but to mitigate its effects, and to relieve distress. From the experiences of the various areas affected we have certain lessons to learn, and they seem to me to be these. In the first place, by no means all the areas that might be affected by flooding have adequate warning systems. Some have; others appear to be sadly behind.
Secondly, in some cases, agencies that should have been providing for the relief of distress did not have a clear enough idea of their own powers and functions. I am told, for instance, of local officers of the Assistance Board in some areas not being clear about whether they were able to provide fuel to families in need of it, and having to engage in telephone conversations with London to reassure themselves on that point
Thirdly, it is true that in some areas a considerable number of organisations and individuals wanted to take part, but that part of their good intentions sometimes ran to waste because the exact rôle that each organisation was to play was not clear. It would be useful, I suggest, if local authorities in any area likely to be affected by flood had what might be called a flood precautions book; a clear, prearranged scheme for what ought to be done by all the various agencies—public, voluntary and semivoluntary—if disaster like this occurred, starting with those whose duty it was to give people warning, and going on to those whose task it was to minimise the effect of the damage or to relieve distress.
The areas that have handled this matter less successfully might find that they have a good deal to learn from those who have dealt with it more successfully. We want a pooling and a dissemination of knowledge and, in some cases, we want rather more co-ordination between one area and another. Mention was made in one of our earlier debates of areas that badly needed pumping machinery having difficulty in getting it from neighbouring areas whose need was not so great or who, perhaps, had no need at all.
We were also told of cases where the fire brigade was in doubt as to whether it might use its pumping gear when the need for it had been created by flood.


There should not be any doubt about that kind of thing. One of the tasks now facing the Government is to review the experiences of the areas affected, and to make sure that failures in warning areas affected, and in the concerting of measures to relieve distress do not recur.
Beyond that, we have to look at what we might call long-term precautions. What can we do to make it, at the very least, less likely that flood will strike at all? I should like to quote a few words spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) in our debate on 14th November, when he said:
It is reckoned that in five years out of ten the eastern half of England is short of water. In East Anglia, it is probable that in nine years out of ten there is a water shortage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960: Vol. 630, c. 63.]
That is the other side of the medal; the reverse of the problem of flood prevention.
I believe that if one looks at the total rainfall that descends on these islands even in a normal year, or the average over a period of years, our total supply of water is fully equal not only to our present demand, but to anything that it is likely to be in the foreseeable future. That is true of the country as a whole, yet we have this recurring water shortage in the eastern half of England and this recurring liability to flooding in other areas.
That means that we must see that how we deal with the rain that falls on these islands is a national problem—

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, already, the County of Devon has promoted Private Bills to provide against shortages of water in the summer months?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. What my hon. Friend says is very much to the point The National Conference of Parish Councils also urged that the matter should be considered in this way.
More could be done in the provision of reservoirs to serve the function of drawing away water that might otherwise become flood water. It could then be stored, and be made available for areas less fortunate—or unfortunate, as one may view it—in their rainfall. If

the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Hydrological Survey of the Severn, published not long ago by his Department, he will notice a reference to the part that could be played against flood prevention by the provision of more reservoirs in the upper reaches of that river.
There is also the possibility of underground storage of water on a great scale, or of arrangements for the movement of water from the west of the country to the east. On that topic, a very bold scheme was put forward in the 18th July issue of Engineering. Exactly how far we can go in this direction is still unknown territory, but it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to prevent the repeated occurrence of water shortages in eastern England and floods due to excessive rainfall in other parts of the country.
It can be done only if we look on a national scale at the conservation of water and the prevention of flooding. That is why river boards, dealing with the matter river by river—and sometimes, I think, more interested in problems of agricultural drainage than in the prevention of floods among large centres of population—are not equal to this task, and will not be equal to it even with the passage of the present Land Drainage Bill. Indeed, I am told that when hon. Members in the Standing Committee now dealing with that Measure have tried to introduce anything about flood prevention they have been assured that that is out of order.
On this national matter we may be told that we have to await the Report of the sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee. It is rather wryly that we remember that for the three years from 1952–55 the work of the Central Advisory Water Committee was suspended for what were called reasons of economy. If that economy had not been made, we might be a good deal nearer to a solution of the problem of flood prevention which has, on this one occasion, cost us upwards of £30 million.
In summary, then, what we are asking for is, first, better advance planning and co-ordination of local measures to warn against flooding, to mitigate loss, and to relieve distress. Secondly, we ask for


the undoubted recognition, through the establishment of a national fund, of the whole nation's responsibility towards those who have suffered. Thirdly, we ask, in the long term, recognition of the fact that a national policy for water rather than consideration river by river could very greatly contribute to the twin problems of water conservation and flood prevention.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I should like, first, to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate; secondly, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, who knows that I have another Parliamentary duty to perform, and am unable to hear his reply; and, thirdly, to the Opposition Front Bench for bringing the very serious and distressing flood situation, which requires urgent treatment, before the House in this way today.
In the early hours of Sunday, 4th December, the County of Montgomery and its people suffered the greatest disaster that has ever been known, not only in living memory but in the records of that county. The county is purely agricultural. Almost all our people depend upon agriculture, and even in the small market towns, the shops and the markets and everything else depend upon agricultural prosperity and the agricultural population.
It is a county which has a very high agricultural production, and that is probably due to the fact that it is the main county through which the River Severn flows, right from its source at the southern end of the county on Plinlimmon. The river then flows northwards right through the county, and when it reaches the northern border turns eastwards into Shropshire and then flows southwards through Shropshire, Worcester and so on down to the Bristol Channel.
The Severn Valley is noted for its high agricultural value. It is certainly the best agricultural land in Wales, and could probably be claimed to be the best agricultural land in the whole of Great Britain. Therefore, the standard of agriculture is very high indeed. It has been noted for many years for its pro

duction of some of the finest agricultural animals that are now so popular elsewhere, but which have originated there.
People are accustomed to floods in the Severn Valley. Certainly, the river does rise rapidly, but never has it risen either so rapidly or so high as it did on that Sunday morning. Our warning point is about one-third of the way down the course which the river takes, at Caersws Bridge, about five miles from Newtown, and usually the danger point is reached when the river rises to 8 ft. above normal at that bridge.
We have a very good warning system, but I suppose that because these warnings have been sent out and disasters such as occurred on that Sunday morning have not happened, people have, unfortunately, taken a chance; but there were very serious consequences to taking any chances on that Sunday morning. The river rose very rapidly on Saturday afternoon until, about midnight, it had reached very nearly 12 ft. above normal.
A particularly unfortunate circumstance from the agricultural point of view was that most of the animals were already in their buildings and, of course, the people themselves were asleep. The total population is only about 43,000 and the number of houses is between 7,000 and 8,000. That morning 706 houses, farmhouses, shops, and business premises were flooded. Forty-one families had to be evacuated, and it was very difficult to get them to leave their homes. Three have been permanently evacuated because the houses have become dangerous.
The figures of the agricultural losses are really appalling. In all, 360 cattle, 965 sheep, 292 pigs, 4,800 head of poultry, six horses and one dog, which, I suppose, was tied in its kennel, were lost.
The mere recital of the figures shows how serious was the position, but some of the farmers have lost their very all. There is one in particular, who was very proud of his farm, which is not far from the English border and is very near to the junction of the main tributary with the Severn. His Red House farm is very well known, as he is himself. During the small hours, he lost 80 cattle, about 120 sheep, 200 turkeys and all his fowls.


He was left absolutely helpless, most of his machinery being ruined.
That is on the farming side, but there was also a very serious tragedy in Newtown. When the flood occurred above the town, the river carried away with it, of all things, telegraph posts, which were brought down through the main street of the town, swinging from side to side and just sweeping all the shop fronts away. One man lost all his savings and all that he had put into working up his business, and that meant a loss to him of about £12,000.
Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, so many of these people have not troubled to insure. There is one particularly striking case of that, because on the previous Monday, naturally, all the talk at the agricultural markets in the towns was of agricultural losses incurred owing to foot-and-mouth disease. One of the farmers on that Monday felt the danger of the situation and insured against the risk of foot-and-mouth disease. He was asked by the insurance people if he would not insure also against flood, but, unfortunately, he said, "No. "Within five days, the flood had come and disaster hit him.
I pay my tribute to the local people. I mention, first, the police. As far as they possibly could, they did everything to warn people and then, when the disaster did strike, in the little market towns, the villages and farms they were unsparing in their help. So were all those who escaped the disaster, but I pay the greatest tribute of all to the women, especially those in the villages and homes which escaped the disaster because they arranged—and they are still doing it, day by day—that bus loads of them should go to the distressed area and help. Today, they are still doing their utmost to clear up the mess and swab it all away. They try to bring comfort and relief as well by taking food and all that is needed for the families there.
A fund was set up and, as one knows, there has been an immediate and ready response. I am glad to think that this will be more than a local fund. I understand that an arrangement has been made for it to be a national Welsh fund, operated from Cardiff by the Lord Mayor of Cardiff. Whatever we collect from

Montgomery will go into the common fund, quite rightly, because disaster has hit Treforest and other places, too. But this fund will be but a tiny percentage of what is needed to cover the terrible loss which people have suffered. Can hon. Members imagine the circumstances of a man such as the one I have mentioned, who has lost his all? He is about my age, and now, after working hard all his life, he faces the future with everything gone.
This is, therefore, a national problem requiring national treatment. I take housing first. I hope that the Government will accept not only that they must be generous, but that they owe a duty to these people which they can neither ignore nor avoid. What is more, whatever help these people receive will be refunded to the Government in the value of the produce which they will be able to bring forth in a very few weeks. I know that the Government are already acting in this matter. Whenever there is a shortage of resources in a local council to give help where it is needed, the Government have at once, almost by return of post, come to its assistance. But I want to know from the Minister what is the general scheme for help. These continuous floods which are hitting so many parts of our country concern us all, everywhere. We ought to have a national plan to deal with them.
More important, perhaps, are plans for the future. As I have explained, the Severn does flood, and it floods almost anywhere. The worst I have known prior to the present floods occurred thirty years ago. Fortunately, I was then at home and able to help. All we could do was to send a telephone message, in response to which two boats were sent, so that two of us could row along what was then a sea—much more than a lake—miles long, going through the various places affected. A similar thing had to be done this time, but, fortunately, some provision has been made since then and help was available through Welshpool.
The experience of the flooding Severn extends over centuries. I believe that the embankments along either side of the river were started in early Norman times. They are put well back from the river, but, of course, the river keeps changing its course, moving nearer to one and further from the other. So far


as we know, an effort was made to repair them and put them right in Tudor times again in Cromwellian times and, last of all, at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. The embankment has fallen into a sad state of repair. Very often, gaps have been made, and these add to the trouble. When the river rises, the water goes through a gap and then, of course, it cannot return to the river itself because the embankment stands between it and the ordinary river bed.
The first thing I ask is that a survey be made of the embankments to see what is needed and to put matters right. Incidentally, why is it that the very excellent Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill is confined to Scotland? I see in the Explantory Memorandum that
The Bill enables county councils and town councils in Scotland to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of flooding of land other than agricultural land".
I regret the addition of the words "other than agricultural land", and I should like to see them struck out.
As I see it, it is an excellent Bill and there is no reason why it should not be extended to agricultural land, the duty being placed upon county councils and other councils to undertake responsibilities in flood prevention. I agree, however, that this would not deal with such a situation as arose this month. The powers of local authorities under such a Bill would relate only to the ordinary floods such as we have once or twice during the year.
What is needed is something far greater, and I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Fulham stress this. The strongest tributary of the Severn is the Vyrnwy, which enters the Severn just at the point before it crosses over into England at the Shropshire border. In the early 1880s, the Vyrnwy was blocked by the Liverpool Corporation and Lake Vyrnwy was created. This has had a very salutary effect in reducing the flooding of the Vyrnwy, which is the strongest stream flowing into the Severn all the way from its source to the point where it reaches the Bristol Channel.
In about 1946 or 1947, this matter had been very much in the minds of our local people, especially the county council. I led a deputation from the county council

here to meet three Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who was then Minister of Fuel and Power, the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who was then Minister of Health, and Mr. Tom Williams, who was Minister of Agriculture. We put before them the idea that they should make a survey of the sources of the Severn. There are two strong streams which ultimately become the Severn. One is known as the Severn, which rises up in Plinlimmon, and the other is known as the Clywedog.
Our proposal was that those rivers should be blocked in the same way as the Vyrnwy had been. Of course, the main idea in the minds of my people, who were all agriculturists, was the prevention of flooding, but we went on to say that, if that were done, we believed, though we had not the expert information available to the Government, that there would be sufficient water to supply any of the needs of South Wales or the industrial areas of England.
Without a doubt, Mr. Bevan was very interested. He asked a great number of questions about the size of the lake and the volume of water which could be conserved. We pointed out that the conservation of water and the containing or disposal of surplus waters such as one has when floods come are very closely connected. If water is conserved in this way, one goes a long way towards preventing disasters such as have happened.
We asked, also—this was why we were seeing the Minister of Fuel and Power—whether it would be possible for the surplus water coming from the two lakes, Which would be large lakes, very much larger than Lake Vyrnwy, to be used for providing electric power. There was then our case to the Minister of Agriculture.
I know that the matter was looked into, but not very thoroughly, because there were more urgent things at that time which required the attention of the Government. Also, I expect that the amount of money involved was too great. I hope that the present Minister will look into the matter again. He has done a great deal with regard to the Severn Conservancy, and he is soon to receive its report. It may very well be


that the answer is to conserve the water of both the Clywedog and the Severn.
I urge upon the Government that this is a matter which brooks of no delay. We do not know when such a disaster will occur again. As I have said, the last major one was thirty years ago, but this winter we may again be in trouble. I ask the Government to treat this matter as one of extreme urgency.

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The Government welcome this debate. A terrible tragedy has struck the country in recent weeks. Unlike some of the great national emergencies we have known in the past, this has not been localised in one spot or one area, but has spread over dozens of counties. Instead of striking all on one night, as with the high tide on the East Coast, it has continued over a period—heavy rain in one place one day and in another place the next day. It has struck here and there, but not everywhere. We are not out of danger yet.
I cannot accept the estimate of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that £30 million worth of damage has been done. However, I do not wish to quarrel with him about that, because no one can say what the amount of damage will be by the end of the winter if this extraordinary wet weather continues throughout the winter months.
I believe that few people can fully visualise the personal tragedy which floods involve unless they have been into a house and seen that dark mark some feet up on the wall and the filth which has been left, as in the Rhondda, where the swollen river brought down quantities of small coal and coal dust which it had washed from tips beside its banks. One is filled with admiration for the people who, often with foolhardy courage, stayed in their houses although they were warned to leave, and for the exemplary patience of those who have gone back to their houses and set to work diligently to make their befouled houses happy and clean homes again.
I do not take this Amendment as a censure on the Government. Indeed, I am grateful to the hon. Member for

Fulham for the words with which he opened his speech. What is said in the Amendment is almost wholly in line with Government policy. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will say something about the national fund when he winds up the debate, but I believe that I can serve the House best by describing what has been done, what is being done and what will be done concerning flood prevention, the work of local authorities, and the rescue action which has been taken both voluntarily and in official capacities wherever floods have occurred.
In seeking to sum up the present position as I see it, may I say that I believe that there are lessons that we can and should learn from this extraordinary weather and its effects, and I shall be listening to the remainder of the debate in the hope of hearing further suggestions from hon. Members on both sides which can be adopted either centrally or locally. We have already a vast amount of experience in dealing with national disasters of this kind, but we should always be adding to our knowledge, learning the lessons and putting them into practice.

Mr. Hayman: Would not the right Gentleman agree that one difficulty in assessing the total result and cost of the floods is the dry rot which inevitably will occur in hundreds, if not thousands, of homes and the full effects of which, perhaps, will not be seen for a year or two?

Mr. Brooke: That is one reason why I am extremely anxious that people whose homes have been flooded should seek the best advice locally to guard against the risk of dry rot.
The cause of all the local disasters has been the weather. The Meteorological Office advises me that we suffered a heavier rainfall over the country as a whole in the months from July to the end of November than has been known in any year since the records were started in 1727. In Hereford, the river rose higher than at any time since 1795. But this continuous rainfall over the country has not been the whole trouble. It has been aggravated in certain places by torrential storms for short periods.
For example, the other day seven inches of rain fell in three days on the Brecon Beacons. This was on country


already saturated with water, so that a very large proportion of additional rainfall runs off at once into the streams and rivers instead of being absorbed by the ground. In no way do I wish to be an alarmist, but I think that it is right to say that, with the soil in this state, there are bound to be further dangers if heavy rain recurs this winter. It is everyone's bounden duty to be alive to those dangers and to heed any local warnings which may be given.
One of the reasons why loss of life has been so small during the floods is that the local alert systems have been greatly improved. In some instances I have heard that people, although warned, would not leave their homes. That is courageous, but unwise. I entirely agree that everywhere, locally, the responsible authorities should check their warning systems and not leave it until the floods come.
Responsibility for flood prevention rests locally with the 32 river boards and the two conservancies—the Thames Conservancy and the Lea Conservancy. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) asked why we could not have a Flood Prevention Bill for England and Wales to match the Scottish Bill. The answer is that the Scottish Bill gives to Scottish local authorities powers which are already possessed by the river boards in England and Wales, which, year by year, have been stepping up their capital expenditure on land drainage and major flood prevention works. There is, however, an enormous amount more to be done.
Flood prevention has suffered through the interruption of war. Just as house building is always brought to an end by war, flood prevention work is another service for which no resources are to spare during wartime. That has added to the backlog. After a nil expenditure during the war, it was not until the 1950s that capital expenditure for flood prevention work became substantial. It is now running at the rate of over £6 million a year. The programmes forecast a steady increase in that sum.
I know for a fact that every river board is examining its programmes afresh in the light of what has happened recently to see whether any of them need to be enlarged or expedited. The river boards can consult the Ministry of Agri

culture at any time about their programmes, projects or problems. The initiative lies with the river boards. It is not the case that the river boards have to bear the whole expenditure. In fact, of the £6 million a year which I have mentioned, more than half is being met by Government grants.
I am sure it is right that this work should be done locally. I am sure that it should rest with the local people in the first instance to study what requires to be done and to formulate their proposals. They should be able to look to London or to Cardiff for advice, guidance, expert assistance and money, but the Government have no sympathy with the view, which I have seen expressed in some newspapers, that all of this should be centralised in London and that all the work should be planned from London and carried out at long range from London with the local people not being brought into it. As the House knows, once we embark on a system of 100 per cent. Exchequer grants, that is what happens. The present machinery works well, although, I say quite frankly, there is a vast amount more to be done.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Fulham referred to the relationship between flood prevention and water conservation. This is an extremely important matter, but it is not an easy one. Reservoirs may be needed for both purposes. For flood prevention the reservoirs need to be kept empty and for water conservation they need to be kept full. Moreover, for water conservation purposes we might well need the reservoirs in one part of the river and for flood prevention in another part. I entirely agree that the two need to be studied together. There is, however, no easy solution.
I could not accept that the study of water conservation has been postponed for three years by a temporary interruption of the work of the Central Advisory Water Committee. The whole question of conservation has been made much more urgent in recent years by the rapidly increasing demand for water and, in particular, by the consumption of water by farmers for irrigation purposes, which is completely new. I took action in asking my Central Advisory Water Committee to


report to me specially on these conservation questions. I have received an interim report from the Committee and am expecting a further report next year. I cannot say what it will embody. The Committee will be examining the matter nationally. It might recommend new legislation. If so, the Government will seriously consider what the Committee says.
Meanwhile, although one or two hon. Members at different times have said that the matter must be looked at nationally, I would say that it needs to be looked at nationally and locally, too. Each river basin has to be examined individually. I have had two hydrological surveys carried out by my technical officers, one of the Great Ouse and one of the Severn. Both surveys have been published. Six other hydrological surveys of other rivers are in progress.
The case of the Severn is particularly urgent from every point of view. Apart from the Severn's liability to flood, it is also known that fresh demands on the Severn for water abstraction are imminent and it is important that Severn water shall be used in the right way. Consequently, I have been successful in securing that all the bodies who are concerned with Severn water shall sit down together in a working party under the chairmanship of one of my officers. They are making a detailed study of the problems of the Severn in the light of the hydrological survey.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of strengthening the river banks. That is a responsibility of river boards. When I mentioned that £6 million capital expenditure a year was being incurred, I might have added that the river boards are, in addition, spending £3 million a year on maintenance works of various kinds.
In all this, the Government fully accept that we are not yet wholly on top of the problem of controlling river waters both for the prevention of floods and for the conservation of water so that there may be at all times a proper flow. I must, however, point out what nobody has yet mentioned, that it is not only flooding and conservation that must be taken into account. With many of the rivers one has also to take into account navigation, fisheries, industrial

demands on the river water, the problem of pollution of the river and amenity aspects generally. This is all extremely complex. I assure the House that we intend to go forward studying the rivers in order of priority of urgency one by one and, in addition, prepared to examine in the light of the Committee's report, which will shortly be submitted to me, whether further legislation is required.
During the past two years, we have had the extraordinary fortune of the driest four months for centuries and the wettest four months for centuries. We must learn every lesson we can, both at the engineering level and at the legislative and administrative levels. As I have said, the Government will be happy to give careful thought to every suggestion that is made by hon. Members in the debate.
The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the position of local authorities. I have been discussing hitherto the preventive policy. Now, let us consider what has to be done in the way of remedial or rescue work when bad flooding occurs. I will come later to the position of individual sufferers. The local authorities may have to carry out work of one kind or another—restoration or construction, for example—as well as rescue work. All this will cost money. For a considerable part of it, grants are already available under ordinary legislation. If, for example, a road is swept away, the highway authority can apply for the ordinary highway grant. If the force of the waters renders houses unfit for further habitation the housing authority can obtain slum clearance subsidy, and so on. In addition, because the total expenditure of the authority will rise, those authorities which are recipients of rate deficency grant will be likely to get a supplement to their own funds automatically by the operation of rate deficiency grant.
I told the House at the beginning of the Session that if, after allowing for all the grants which accrue through one statutory provision or another, a local authority finds that it has to entertain expenditure which would place an unreasonable burden on its ratepayers, it can make a claim for special financial assistance and the Government will sympathetically consider any such claim.


The House will realise that that stage is not reached for a long time. It is not reached until the bills have come in and the calculations have been made. Financially, the task of helping the individual sufferer is one that comes much more quickly.

Mr. Arthur Probert: Would not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific? To give an example, a river which is not designated—in other words, has not been taken over by a river board—has now raised its bed 3 ft. or 4 ft. In consequence, the local authority has to take emergency action. How can the right hon. Gentleman assist such a local authority?

Mr. Brooke: It is quite simple. If it appears that work which it is necessary for the local authority to do, when it has been paid for and all grants have been taken into account, will throw an unreasonable burden on the ratepayer, the local authority can count on special financial assistance.
The hon. Member for Fulham asked me to define "unreasonable". Clearly, there can be no simple definition of that. One has to take into account the total amount of money involved, the product of a 1d. rate in that area, and, in addition, the level of the rates, because what might be a wholly unreasonable expenditure for a small rural district council to bear might well be within the means of the City of London or the City of Westminster. One has to examine this on an ad hoc basis. I assure the House that I have no intention of adopting a skinflint attitude. The responsibility will fall on me. I have given a pledge to the House and I wish to fulfil it faithfully.
I have explained so far about flood prevention work and local authority remedial work and I want to make it clear that nothing is being held up, to the best of my knowledge, in either field. Flood prevention is not being held up waiting for the report of a sub-committee, and local government remedial work need not be held up by financial fears—because of the pledge I have given.
We now come to the most human question of all, that of help to the individual. This comes, quite naturally, in the very forefront of the Amendment. I have made it my business to obtain

reports from all the flooded parts of the country about what has been happening. These reports, though they tell of a terrible amount of human tragedy, nevertheless are reassuring in that, generally speaking, all the services seem to have worked together with an extraordinary smoothness and efficiency. I would not claim for one moment that there has been no difficulty anywhere. There has, of course, been the momentary hold-up here and there through some individual not quite knowing what his powers were and wishing to ring up authority.
The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the National Assistance Board. I have heard, contrary to what he said, much appreciation of the swiftness with which the Board has gone into action, and I know that it is the policy of the Board to give its regional controllers and local managers very wide discretion at times like these, on the general principle that the one thing that matters is that urgent individual need must be met at once.
But, of course, when the tragedy of floods comes the local authority has to co-ordinate the relief work. I should like to pay tribute, and I know that I can do so in the name of the whole House, to local authorities and their welfare services, to the police, the fire service, the Civil Defence service, and to the Service Departments, which, in some cases, have been extremely helpful in rushing equipment to the spot, and to all voluntary organisations, the Women's Voluntary Service, first and foremost, and to many others, including the Salvation Army. Everybody who has been available has come in to help. It has been a most remarkable tribute to the resourcefulness and readiness of the British people, without many orders, to come and act in co-operation and get on with the job when there are people needing to be helped.

Mr. Hayman: And the neighbours.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, and the neighbours. Even some of those who suffered themselves have been quick to go round to help those who have suffered worse.
Wonderful work has been done by the emergency meal services. To take one example, in Bath, which is not an enormous place, no fewer than 3,000 hot meals were served In one day. The food


flying squads of the Ministry of Agriculture have been in action in various places. We really have shown, as a nation, how it is possible to rally to help. The rest centres have been open where necessary and it has been found most important to make maximum use of all the drying equipment, on large or small scale, that could be obtained to dry out houses and make them habitable again. According to my reports, there has been very little delay in getting all the services to work and in seeing that people are helped.
In the reports that have come in to me there have been far more expressions of gratitude for the way in which everybody has helped in an emergency than criticisms that everything has not gone quite right. Clearly, a job like that, whatever the form of the emergency, must be tackled first by people on the spot. I had let it be known through what I had said in the House that any local authority that was in difficulty could ring up the Ministry and we would endeavour to give a reply, if not over the telephone then within a few hours.
I am very glad that many local authorities have taken advantage of this. Indeed, collaboration between local government and central government as well as with the voluntary services has been so perfect that I have come to think that we may have some lessons to learn from this, too, and we might see whether we can put it into practice over a wider field.

Sir Douglas Glover: May I, with some knowledge of the aftereffects of flooding, ask my right hon. Friend a question? Where this drying equipment has been brought into play I have found, on many occasions, that six months or nine months later, when the householder thinks that all the problems have been solved and the difficulties put right, it is discovered that from under the floodboards smells develop in the house. The floorboards have to be pulled up to get rid of the smells. If this happens this time, will the local authority and the central Government feel that they should shoulder some of the financial responsibility in helping these people? The expense then will be far greater than the cost of the natural drying-out of the house now.

Mr. Brooke: I quite agree, and that is why I said earlier that local authorities should give advice to people about the possible dry rot that may develop if they do not attend to the drying properly.
Flood relief funds have been opened in most cases forthwith by the local authorities. That is the natural and proper thing to do. Do not let us argue about the meaning of "charity" and whether it is a good or a bad word. Whatever we did in the House I am certain that such funds would be established straightaway locally and people would subscribe to them. Indeed, many people among those who have not suffered from the floods want to subscribe as a measure of thank offering. They may not have suffered physically themselves, but want to give up something for the benefit of the victims.
What matters most is that all financial and other needs shall be met without delay, and I believe that we have achieved that. We have to see, therefore, that there is sufficient money in all these funds. For that reason, I said, and have repeated, that the Government stand ready to supplement any local funds which do not suffice to meet all the proved distress in the area.
The hon. Member for Fulham made reference to some remarks at a meeting of Taunton Borough Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) may have something to say about that. I have checked since the hon. Member spoke, and have ascertained that Taunton Council has been assured more than once that it can have money from us instantly the moment it asks for it, but the council has not yet asked for it.
A number of other localities have asked for it, however, and I want to tell the House what has been done. The Devon and Exeter floods were the first, and £50,000 has been sent, in response to a request, to Devon and Exeter. A sum of £25,000 has been sent to Bath Flood Relief Fund in response to a request; £20,000 has been sent to Horncastle; £5,000 to Maidstone; £5,000 to Williton; £4,000 to Newport, Isle of Wight; and £100,000 to the Lord Mayor of Cardiff's Fund for Wales and Monmouthshire.
In every case, when we have received a request, either by letter or telephone, the cheque has been posted forthwith. Any local fund which is in difficulties and has claims which it is unable to meet can act in the same way apply to us and the money will be sent at once.
I do not mind whether one calls this a national fund or not. My concern is that it shall work. It is working, and I trust that we will not divert too much of our energies from making sure that the machine does work into what strike me as being rather theoretical arguments about whether this fulfils all the requirements of a national fund.
I have been asked once or twice: why did not the Government say that they would do this on a for £ basis? The answer is that though that might be generous in some instances, it would not be sufficiently generous in others. A small place may have relatively scanty resources and may not be able to raise a big fund, though it needs the money. We do not want to be restricted by rules of that kind. We want to be sure of supplying the money when it is asked for.
We have informed all local authorities concerned of What our opinion is on the Lord Mayor's rules, which were carefully drawn up in connection with the administration of the big fund after the East Coast floods of 1953. I have sent one of my financial experts round to a large number of local authorities to help and advise them about any financial points on which they wish guidance.
The War Damage Commission has lent a number of its assessors, who have great experience in dealing with claims, and I have heard from several quarters how valuable it has been to have these professionally trained people on the spot to give advice to local authorities and the administrators of funds about practical questions of administration, and to give help and advice to applicants about putting in their claims.
We made plans to let all applicants know how they could get claim forms. May I say, in passing, that farmers who have suffered losses, if they send in claims, are having them transmitted to the regional controllers of the Ministry of Agriculture, and they are being dealt with in that way. There are, of course, various agricultural grants which may

be available under existing legislation or practice to assist with the rehabilitation of farms.
The money that my Department is supplying to supplement various funds is being advanced out of the Civil Contingencies Fund for the moment, but a Supplementary Estimate will be required and will be submitted to the House. It will appear eventually as a Grant-in-aid on my Department's vote.
The first task is to make sure that any victim has food and fuel, and drying and cleaning material. The victims want as quickly as possible to get back to their old life and to carry it on as they have known it and enjoyed it. Only then do they start counting up their loss in money terms, and only after that will some of them, at any rate, be able to put in claims on their insurers.
A great many people who have suffered have been found not to be insured. On the other hand, a great many have insurance claims, and I am advised that for the losses through the first floods—the ones that occurred some time ago in Devon and elsewhere—more than 20,000 insurance claims have come in and that the insurers have already met over half of them.
The larger claims from individuals will take some time to prepare and to check, but all the smaller claims are being dealt with, I believe, with the utmost swiftness through these local funds, and I have taken action today—I hope that the House will approve—of making sure that the Press throughout the country has the addresses where these local funds are being conducted.
It has been suggested to me that there may be numbers of people—for instance, Welshmen outside Wales and Men of Kent or Kentish Men—who live some distance from Wales or Maidstone and do not know at the moment where to send money, but would like to help. I hope that the Press will give publicity to all that.
That is the general story which the Government have to tell. Floods are a terrible tragedy. I have indicated what remedial and preventive action is at hand. Frankly, I can see very few ways in which the rescue machinery could have worked more smoothly, though I am not saying that it was perfect.


Everywhere, it was very largely due to local initiative with the Government standing ready to help.
I have made it my business to make sure, as far as I could, that the central Government's machinery was working on oiled wheels. If the Opposition's Amendment censured the Government, I should ask them to explain how the arrangements they would have made would have brought aid and succour more quickly to the victims. I do not think that their arrangements would have done that, and I do not think that it matters very much whether one calls this a national fund or not. One virtue of this arrangement is that the areas needing help from the Exchequer have automatically defined themselves. This has been where the civic authorities have thought the disaster sufficiently serious to open a local fund. If they have, then the Government stand behind them. If they have not, then that is at least some indication that they do not consider the emergency to have been abnormal.
My desire is to ensure that there is the smoothest possible co-operation between the central Government and local government and that there is sympathetic administration of all these funds. I shall listen to the rest of the debate with the greatest attention. The Government recognise the danger as a continuing one and that we shall not be out of the wood, or out of the wet, until the dry weather of next summer comes. [Laughter.] It may be that I am too hopeful, but I think that we shall dry off a bit in the summer.
I trust that it will appear, as the result of the debate, that if there are differences between us, they are not deep cut. They are surface differences, because I am sure that as compared with any small differences we might have, none of them counts against the unity of the House in sympathy with the victims and in united tribute to every man, woman and child who, often in conditions of hardship, exhaustion and sometimes danger, has rushed to the help of fellow citizens who have been hit by disaster.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I have been much taken by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and some of

the fears of Rhondda have been allayed by that speech, but not all of them. For most of last week I spent most of my time among the people in my constituency who have been seriously affected by flooding and by landslides because of the excess of water. I need hardly tell the House that what is left after floods of this character is a tragic sight.
I pay my tribute to the local authorities and the voluntary organisations for the manner in which they have met this great difficulty. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson), whose constituencies are adjacent to mine and who feel as I do but who may not get a chance to speak in the debate. Indeed. I am sure that I speak for all those Members whose areas have been affected by the floods.
I could tell the House of many extreme cases of distress and the efforts of many organisations to render all possible assistance. The Western Mail of today tells of Red Cross workers from Cardiff. Swansea and Maesteg who sent to Trehafod £3,000 worth of household utensils, blankets, carpets and so on which were badly needed in that area. That is an indication of the spontaneous response from many organisations in the Principality.
I could relate many harrowing experiences. That I do not do so is because I am mindful of the fact that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, want to speak. However, for a few moments I want to deal with some matters about which I have been gravely disturbed and which are causing much anxiety in my constituency and, I assume, in many other areas. There are two problems in Rhondda. In some parts, such as Gelli and Tonpentre in Rhondda, West and Trehafod in my constituency, there are wide areas where houses were flooded to a considerable depth, where the occupants sometimes had to be rescued by boats and taken to rest centres which the local authorities immediately set up. All that was a temporary measure and was successfully completed with the co-operation of both the victims and those who sought to give assistance.
Some days later, after the floods had subsided and families were in the process of being rehabilitated in their own homes. I visited one of the affected areas at Trehafod in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. That was last Thursday. I then had my first experience of the red tape and niggardly attitude which is so often associated with Government Departments. I accept what the Minister has said about the liaison between those Departments in general and the people concerned with flooding. However, I have to criticise officials of the National Assistance Board, divisional and area.
There were homes saturated with water and people trying to get back to normal and yet, because of the niggardliness of those officials, being refused a meagre two hundredweights of coal to dry out their homes. Some local officials acted more humanely and ultimately the difficulty was surmounted, but other officials were asking questions to decide whether people deserved that small ration of coal. There were men who had lost their working boots in the flood and who wanted to get back to work and who needed a small grant so that they could buy a new pair of boots. They found the attitude of the National Assistance Board's officials frustrating. I hope that those things will be adjusted if there are ever any floods in future.
I call attention to the circular which the Minister sent to local authorities. It said:
First, as a first-aid measure the National Assistance are accepting claims to meet the immediate personal needs of people affected by flooding. If further information is required local authorities should consult the manager of the local office of the National Assistance Board.
The circular is dated 8th December, but the floods occurred in Rhondda on the night of the 3rd-4th December. What instructions were issued immediately to the area offices of the National Assistance Board to deal with this emergency? Secondly, what instructions, if any, have these people to deal with such an emergency? The need for an overall plan to deal with such emergencies is apparent to anybody who witnessed the early confusion.
I would like to quote again from this document. It says:

The losses by individual householders of personal businesses should be met in the first place from insurance in so far as an insurance policy applies, and in the second place from an appeal fund. In so far as voluntary contributions to such a fund are insufficient to meet all needs, the Government has undertaken to meet the difference between the amount available in the appeal fund and the need. In view of this it is not considered necessary for local authorities to make money available for this purpose from the general rate fund.
Are we to take it from that that if a policy of insurance is held by a householder he will not be entitled to get any assistance either from the voluntary appeal fund or from the Government? What if his losses are far in excess of his coverage? Is he to be penalised for trying to meet such an emergency himself and falling short of his needs? If that is the case, surely it is totally unfair and unreasonable.

Mr. Brooke: Might I answer that point straight away? So far as immediate needs are concerned, there can be no question of asking people whether they have an insurance policy or are likely to be reimbursed for their immediate personal needs. However, when it comes to sending in a financial claim later, it is reasonable, because these are funds which have been provided either voluntarily or by the taxpayers, to ask whether the individual has an expectation of getting reimbursement in full from his insurance company.

Mr. Richard Kelley: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by immediate personal needs?

Mr. Davies: In the next paragraph of the circular the Government were, to my mind, saying that they intended to evade what surely should be their responsibility by partially hiding behind the contribution to the Lord Mayor's Fund in Wales and other voluntary funds in other parts of the country. I am glad to have had some assurance on that score from the Minister.
I am sure that no hon. Member would like to see the spirit of giving in times of stress such as this done away with, but we must have some regard for the immensity of the need at the present time and the amount of money which funds of this kind usually attract. I have in mind that recently we had a


national fund in Wales because of a pit disaster. It has taken six or seven months to amass £100,000. I am afraid that if we rely too much upon the local aspect for these funds we will not be doing our duty.
In the final paragraph of the circular to which I have referred local authorities are advised by the Ministry not to make money available for relief from the general rate fund. I am sure that that will be greatly appreciated by most local authorities, and in particular by local authorities such as Rhondda where the rate burden is already extremely high. I was pleased to hear the Minister say today that these considerations would be borne in mind when the payment to local authorities began. On 2nd November, 1960, the Minister referred to what would happen in the case of local authorities who had an unreasonable burden placed on them and on their rates. I contend that, in any authority, like Rhondda, where the rate burden is so high at the moment, it would be unreasonable to ask for an increase on the present rate. That is where the Minister and I would probably differ, on the interpretation of the word "unreasonable". I hope that the Minister who replies will give us his opinion about that.
Much will depend on the speed with which claims are met and decided, and the generosity and humanity with which they are decided by the responsible assessors. One thing which worries me is the reliance on the voluntary appeal fund. I am pleased to know that the south-west area of the National Union of Mineworkers has decided to contribute £3,000 to this fund. It has also decided to impose a levy of 2s. per adult and 1s. per junior, which will bring in another £8,000. However, I am sure that they would not want this to be interpreted as meaning that the Government should shelve their responsibility. That must be clearly understood, and I am sure that when I say that I am speaking for the executive of the South-Wales area of the union and the men who will be asked to make this contribution.
May I now deal with the second problem confronting us in Rhondda. About 200 yards from where I live at Pontygwaith part of the mountain slipped into the houses. This occurred

at Brewery Street. About fifteen houses were seriously affected. Some were more seriously damaged than others, but they were all damaged by water sweeping down from the mountain. This caused great fear and distress on Sunday of last week. May I quote a statement made by one of the residents in a local newspaper. He and other residents got up early on Sunday morning when water poured through their houses to a depth of 6 or 7 ft. He said:
The whole area behind is a vast watershed. It suddenly sprang numerous outlets and then the whole ground exploded. We tried to divert it into the main street but the mountain seemed to blow up round us. It was like being on the rim of a volcano. Had we been standing where we were a minute or two sooner we would have been buried. It was impossible to calculate how much mud and water dropped in on us, and there is considerably more hanging there now virtually by a few threads. A telegraph post was snapped as if it was a pencil. Near where the back garden walls had been smashed down two cars lay buried in the mud.
That was the situation that I saw on Sunday, 4th December.
The problem lies not in what has happened but what is likely to happen. Even the local authority has said that this mountain may start moving again at any time, although the people have gone back into their houses. Behind the mountain there is a cavity of 100 or 150 yards which is still full of water. Were it not for the fact that we have had little or no rain in the days immediately following this occurrence I am convinced that there would have been a very serious catastrophe in the area.
I urge the Minister to deal quickly with this problem. Can we have some sort of warning system which will give the people who now reside in these houses some indication of the slightest movement in the mountain? Can he send in his technical officers at an early date to advise the local authority in the matter and to give them an assurance that money will be forthcoming from the Government to get on with the job of ensuring that such happenings will be prevented in the future?
There is much that I could say in connection with this matter, but I conclude merely by asking the House whether it feels that it is not too much to ask that the Amendment should be agreed to. It


asks for three things—first, that all the necessary assistance should be given to individuals and local authorities affected by these tragic happenings; secondly, that we should safeguard the future by the establishment of a national fund for the relief of distress caused by floods or similar disasters and, thirdly, that we should devise adequate means of preventing floods or flood damage in future.
The House owes it to those people who have been affected by these problems, to those who have sacrificed so much to assist them, to local authorities who have borne the burden, and last but not least to itself, to accept the Amendment and to see that its terms are carried out forthwith.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: In rising for the first time in this House, I should like to ask for its indulgence. I want to take a few minutes to mention some subjects which have not yet received attention but which are appropriate to the recent floods. One form of damage which might well receive alleviation is really an indirect one. Businesses which necessarily use imported machinery have to pay import duty on spare parts. I am informed that the object of that duty is not to raise revenue but to protect home industry, and it is therefore reasonable to ask that when as a result of flood devastation emergency imports are necessary in order to get the factories back to work, a concession should be granted so that the Exchequer does not raise extra funds, even if inadvertently, through the misfortune of flood damage. This might well also apply to emergency imports of raw materials to replace those destroyed by flooding.
In both cases I am thinking not merely of the firms concerned but of those employed in the firms. In many cases the employers are doing their best to get the works running, even if the equilibrium of production is upset. It is in the interests of local communities that normality should be restored as quickly as possible, even if it is necessary to bring in additional imports as an emergency measure.
Secondly, I want to draw attention to the considerable period of time which

can elapse before the full damage to the agricultural community can be assessed. Owing to the very bad weather this year there was a shortage of hay and other feedingstuffs in the West Country; and the loss of this hay owing to the disastrous flooding involves more than the value of the hay itself. A further loss will result from farmers being unable to keep the same number of animals through the winter to sell in the spring.
There are other considerations. Owing to the flooding it has been necessary for many farms to sell off a large proportion of their cattle in a short period because they were unable to accommodate them. The result was a significantly greater drop in the market price than would normally have been expected at this time. That is yet another form of damage, although I should be the first to agree that it is an extremely difficult form to assess.
I want to deal with the problem of insurance, from two aspects. Some insurance is misleading. I do not necessarily imply that it is sold with the intention of misleading, but I should like to know how many of us look at the fine print in our own insurance policies. I know it to be true that in a number of cases people have paid premiums on insurance policies bearing the word "comprehensive" only to find when the risk falls due that among the fine print is the statement that as the house is cob built—that is, the binding is of earth instead of cement—the structure is not covered by the policy. In future we ought to give some attention to the need to ensure, if possible, that insurance which is misleading in effect if not in intent is made more comprehensible to people who avail themselves of it and believe that they are taking all reasonable steps to provide against misfortune.
Then there is the problem of uninsurable property. I expect that this will become more serious rather than less serious as a result of the recent flooding. Property which lies in frequently flooded districts may be literally impossible to insure at any figure. We should consider what means we can take to enable the owners of such property to insure it. I fear that as a result of the catastrophic floods the classes of property and the areas in which they are situated and


which are, in effect, commercially uninsurable, may be extended, in which case this problem will become very much more urgent.
It is surely particularly so when the Government extend themselves to assist people, that this should not be taken as a disincentive to people to safeguard their own interests as much as is reasonably possible in the future. Certain it is, to my mind, that where there are many cases known locally of people who imagined that they had insured themselves, only to find that in fact they were Mot covered, or, alternatively, people who endeavoured to insure themselves but were unable to do so, there may be an increased rather than a reduced tendency for people to insure against the risk which has been brought home to them in such a disastrous fashion.
I wish to pay a personal tribute to the many voluntary organisations which I saw operating, not only in Tiverton, on that disastrous Sunday. In particular, the cadet force and the boys of Blundells School, who operated a radio network which, as the telephone system was to some extent disrupted by the floods, proved extremely useful. The next day they performed the not very pleasant task of taking round large quantities of coal to houses which had been flooded and assisted in sweeping the mud and slime out of those houses. Both these actions have not passed unnoticed by the people who had the misfortune to suffer.
I wish to say a word of appreciation to the members of the Civil Defence, because very often it is considered that they exist only for one purpose, to guard—we hope—against the advent of a major catastrophe connected with war rather than with the natural elements. I hope that some people who have some spare time which they can usefully employ might feel that they could give service in this direction, as it would be of such demonstrated value to their fellow citizens. Many of us consider that the police force exists solely either to deter people from crime or apprehend them when they have transgressed. But I think any of us who have seen members of the police forces working at times of disaster such as this must realise that they have other functions as well, which they perform very cheerfully and

humanely and with very great effort and consideration for the people among whom they live.

5.44 p.m.

Sir John Maitland: It is always a great pleasure and privilege on behalf of the House to congratulate an hon. Member on his maiden speech and to welcome him to our work when he has passed that difficult fence which we all have to negotiate. It is particularly pleasant for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), as I am one of the many friends of his distinguished predecessor. It was perhaps an augury of the future that the first words which the hon. Gentleman uttered in this House were about the reduction of taxation, something about which his predecessor knew quite a lot. It is very easy to congratulate my hon. Friend on an extremely thoughtful and helpful speech. The problem of uninsurability is one that all of us who have come in contact with flooded areas have encountered. I think there is no doubt that my hon. Friend may rest well assured that the House will listen to him very carefully indeed when he speaks again and often, as we hope he will.
The Minister mentioned a place which had had seven inches of rain in three days. In my constituency we had seven inches of rain in six hours. I will not go into the whole story of what happened there. We had one of the few fatal casualties, and the tragedy would have been much greater had it not been—so many hon. Members have said this—for the magnificent work of the local authority, the Civil Defence, the police and all concerned. It was a magnificent team job, and I am proud to represent people of that sort in this House.
The Civil Defence people were quite magnificent. They were on the spot in under two hours after the floods had occurred, with the rest of the team, although there was, of course, no warning. Horncastle is quite a small town, with a population of about 4,000 people, yet the whole of our Civil Defence services were engaged in coping with this disaster. They were able to cope with it and to do their job well, but it is not something to be too pleased about when we think that Horncastle is only one small town in the very large area which


those services have to cover. It indicates both the value of the Civil Defence services and the need to strengthen and improve them.
I wish to quote from two letters, and I do so with great pleasure, because it is not often I have the opportunity of so congratulating Her Majesty's Government. The letter is from the deputy clerk to one of the local authorities concerned, who, incidentally, is also the secretary of the disaster fund. In this letter, written shortly after the floods, he states:
The Government appear to have tackled this problem with speed and there is no doubt that this has enabled us here in Horncastle to now proceed to deal with the claims with the utmost speed.
The next sentence which I am going to read may perhaps he out of order. It is not usual—it is not proper—to criticise civil servants in this House. I am not sure whether it is proper to praise them, but I am going to do so—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think the hon. Gentleman had better not read it and I am obliged to him for his warning.

Sir J. Maitland: I thank you for the Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will see that the letter reaches the Minister so that he may read what is in it for himself.
The second extract I wish to read is front a letter which was written on 7th December:
I would like to stress the assistance we have received from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government officials and from the War Damage Commission assessors. With regard to financial help from the Ministry, I telephoned them on Monday to ask for £20,000 to be deposited to our Flood Fund account, and this was done immediately.
So I think the Government have a good record for their actions during this difficult and deplorable time.
I wish to say something about the question of the establishment of a national fund. I am one who has pressed for that, but I realise that it is a very difficult thing to do. Someone has to decide what is a disaster and how many people must it affect before a national fund would begin to work. Who would decide that? There is the question of how the fund would be financed, which is probably the easiest question to answer. Would it be financed directly from public sources, or would it absorb the "tails"

of all the private funds which were used before and which cannot now be used owing to the conditions under which they were subscribed?
All these are difficult problems. It is no good trying to pretend that they can be answered easily. I think it possible to have a national disaster fund. New Zealand has one, which apparently works very well and gives considerable confidence to people in a country where there are many national disasters caused by flooding, from volcanic action, and so on. What I should like the Government to do would be to have the matter considered by outside experts and prepare a report giving the pros and cons for a fund of this kind. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of pressure for a national fund before people have really thought the problem through to the end. I think we could have one, but before we do so we ought to have the matter fully considered.
We ought to have the opportunity of considering in detail proposals put before us in order that we in the House of Commons, and through us the Government, may do the right thing. There is no doubt that that is what the country at the moment wants. It will not be satisfied if the suggestion is turned down flat in the House this evening. It would be satisfied if the matter could be carefully considered and the pros and cons fully debated and thought out. So I hope the Government will not turn the idea down flat. On the other hand, I think it would be unwise for them to say they will agree to having a national fund at once. The matter should be fully considered so that we can fully understand it.
I would like now to turn to another matter. There is a mechanical difficulty about helping ratepayers, particularly in regard to river boards, which have incurred considerable additional expense when banks of rivers have broken and so on. It is extremely difficult to help because a river board raises money through precepts, not necessarily made on one local authority, but sometimes on several local authorities. My river board raises precepts on three county councils. In one county there have been floods, but not in the other two. It is difficult to make that additional precept the subject of individual Government assistance.
I want the Government to look at this problem of helping these cases and to realise that it is a difficult problem. They must not say that because it is difficult they will try to fit it into what might be called a reasonable expense. I do not think they will do that, but I emphasise that there are mechanical difficulties in helping river boards to raise money because they are financed in a rather curious way. We are spending a lot of time upstairs in Committee discussing this question. Some precepts come from internal drainage boards, and they may be increased awing to flood damage. It is difficult to see haw ratepayers paying those rates could be relieved of an excess which would be out of all proportion to what they might normally expect.

Mr. George Jeger: The hon. Member is aware that in Committee upstairs we have been told repeatedly by the Minister of Agriculture that the Land Drainage Bill has nothing whatever to do with the floods which we are discussing today.

Sir J. Maitland: I am a member of that Committee, and I should not have thought that the report by the hon. Member in that particular sense was correct. It would be quite out of order to go into the question more, but there we are discussing how to pay for these matters. I am discussing now how the rates for these particular payments should be raised. I am pointing out that it is a very complicated matter. I know the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) will agree with me in that. It will have added particular complications and difficulties when the Government—as they have pledged themselves to do—relieve ratepayers of excessive costs which these floods have made inevitable. I quite agree that if the burden can be spread reasonably and it can be shown that they can take the costs in their stride, that is all right. I do not think we should argue about that, but there are many cases in which river boards have a problem. I hope the Minister and the Government will still further examine that problem.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I wish to join the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Sir J. Maitland) in paying tribute

to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whom we heard for the first time tonight. I am glad that the hon. Member follows a not undistinguished right hon. Member of this House in representing that constituency and that he has so soon made his maiden speech. It is remarkable that we should have a maiden speech on a topic like this, and I congratulate the hon. Member for choosing this subject which affects the life and wellbeing of his constituents. Like other hon. Members, I hope we shall hear from him often and to our advantage.
This has been a constructive debate, a debate in which generally both sides of the House have been reaching out to find ways of helping our people and of avoiding further suffering. I welcomed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and much of what the Minister of Housing and Local Government said tonight. All of us have been deeply moved by the suddenness of the trouble and sorrow which came to our people. I have been impressed by the fibre of those in trouble—by the way in which old people, living by themselves, have responded with remarkable courage and fortitude, and the way in which young people, who sometimes are denigrated in these days, have rallied to help total strangers to get over their difficulties.
We in the City of Cardiff suffered the greatest disaster that city has known in living memory. I entirely agree that our first aim must be to relieve suffering. That was the immediate reaction of the right hon. Gentleman when he announced that the first aim would be to relieve the suffering of the people. Like other hon. Members, I have been visiting homes in my constituency where people are trying to dry out furniture, to clean walls and get back to normal. It is a sheer impossibility for most ordinary people to assess accurately the damage they have suffered. When folk have asked me if I would help them to assess damage in their homes I have been willing so to do, but I am not an expert.
The demand upon the local authority is tremendous. Thousands of homes in the City of Cardiff were flooded very seriously on that Sunday a fortnight ago. Local government officers will not be able to cope for a long time with all


the problems of the people involved and to guide them on what claims they should make in respect of damage. I am grateful for the speed with which the various departments of the local authority have gone into action to try to help. I believe that what has happened before can happen again and that our main task is to see that we are prepared to prevent a catastrophe of these proportions. Although we can do nothing to prevent the rainfall, we can do a great deal to our rivers and watercourses to avoid the terrible danger to which we have been subject.
Did I follow the Minister correctly when he said that river boards are undertaking a comprehensive survey of all the rivers in their districts? If they embark on a vast capital expenditure programme which clearly arises because of the increased danger, will there be a 100 per cent. grant to cover such works in the future? I believe that where local authorities have to embark on unusual work and special expenditure caused by the floodim, it all ought to rate at once for 100 per cent. grant from the Exchequer. We must realise that the fortunate have an obligation to help the unfortunate, and the fairest way of all, that I can see, is for it to be done through the Exchequer. We all pay our taxes according to our ability, and it is much fairer for the Exchequer to say to local authorities that the rates, which are never as fairly assessed as taxes, because they are assessed not upon one's income but upon where one is living and other extraneous factors, should not have to bear any burden as a result of the flooding but that the Exchequer will bear the burden in all cases.

Mr. Charles Pannell: This Government believe in local option.

Mr. Thomas: I am not speaking on behalf of the Government.
I want, next, to refer to the question of the warning system. Although people are rightly extremely grateful for all the help and the assistance which they received when the floods occurred, there is much feeling that the warning system was not as good as it ought to have been. For instance, in Cardiff, where the floods reached Gabalfa in Cardiff, North soon after 5 a.m., there was a warning to the tenants just before the floods broke and

there was admirable liaison, but in West Cardiff, my division, which the Minister knows well, the floods reached Cathedral Road, I understand, about 7 a.m. and they reached other parts of Riverside about 9 a.m. Because it was a Sunday morning people were lying in bed without realising the danger which was lapping along the streets. If there had been a loudspeaker warning, these people might have been able to lift up some of the furniture. I do not wish to blame anyone, because I realise that all the resources of Civil Defence, the police and others were concentrated on the disaster at Gabalfa, but I hope that in future we shall give priority in our considerations to the provision of a warning system which can arouse people.
We had the warning of the West Country staring us in the face. Our hearts have gone out to the people of the West Country, particularly Exeter, where they have been flooded four times. We thanked God that in our own city we were more fortunately placed. But those who are responsible for the wellbeing of the community must not be content with thanking God. We must in future be prepared with some system of warning. We could use the siren or some other national system when we are confronted with dangers of this sort in districts near the hills.
As is increasingly the custom in Wales, the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Cardiff assumes the responsibility for national appeals in the Principality, and I think that this meets with the support and the good wishes of our people as a whole. But a disaster of this sort cannot possibly be left there. The Minister acknowledges that by explaining that the public generosity and even the amounts which he has sent are tiny fragments of what will need to be supplied. The generous contribution of £100,000 to the Lord Mayor's Fund could, I am sure, be swallowed up in my division without looking to Cardiff, North and the devastation of the poor Rhondda Valley. I believe that the Minister will be obliged to think in terms of many millions of £s.

Mr. Brooke: I may not have made it clear but the payments which I detailed were all payments on account. They were not intended to assess our view of what that fund might eventually require.


We have been asked for certain moneys in order to keep the fund solvent, and we have responded instantly.

Mr. Thomas: I do not want to sound ungrateful. We are grateful that there has been recognition that at the end of the day it is the Government who must stand behind all these things, and the Minister has generously said that they will. I wish that he had gone the other step forward and had accepted the idea of a national disaster fund. The British are generous people; their instincts are sound enough. A national disaster fund could not only make provision for the Government to do their duty but could give an opportunity for people with high motives and warm hearts to make their contribution in the event of such disasters.
I am not put off by the question of what is a disaster. We know a disaster when we meet it. It may be difficult to define, whether in the coal mines, at sea, on land, or by flooding—but when there is a disaster, hon. Members know. It should not be beyond the wit of the House to devise a national scheme which can cater for folk who meet these terrible troubles.
My last point concerns insurance and compensation. I believe that it will be extraordinarily difficult to do the right thing by all the people who have suffered. I was in a home last week-end when I saw a widow, with a settee tipped on one side, trying pitifully to dry it out in front of the fire. It was useless because the silt was inside. Her furniture will never be the same. She said that she had a comprehensive insurance policy but the insurance company said that it was for storm and pestilence but not for flood. I ask the Minister to make an appeal to the great insurance companies of this land to be generous in their interpretation in dealing with the claims of flood victims. He told us that 20,000 applications had already been received and that 10,000 had been dealt with. I hope that it will not be necessary for any hon. Member to have to write to insurance companies to ask them to meet generously claims from people who thought that they had an honourable understanding with the various insurance firms; because I believe that big business, as small business, depends at the

end of the day on mutual trust and integrity.
I am sure that insurance companies will be aware that the whole nation is watching how they will deal with these flood victims who are insured with them. There is the example which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) was bringing to my attention of people in Bridgend, which was also badly flooded, who insured the contents of their homes years ago and had not increased their value. These people have been caught out on a limb. Despite the manifold human problems of this sort which arise, I earnestly hope that if insurance companies err at all it will be on the side of generosity.
Pounds, shillings and pence can never properly compensate these people for the terror they have known and the misery they have endured, but at least it can help to restore their homes to something like normality. I am glad the Government are willing to make their contribution. I hope they will look again at the question of a national distress fund.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I intend to make a very short speech and would like to begin it by adding to the tribute already paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). His constituency and mine are contiguous, and there has always been a healthy rivalry and healthy friendship between our two constituencies. I was interested in my hon. Friend's reference to the boys of Blundells, because the pupils, particularly the boys, did so much good work at the time of the flood disaster. Perhaps when they have cleaned themselves from carting coal they will look forward to being beaten again at rugger and cricket by the boys of Taunton, as they always are.
Flooding is of great concern to the House as a whole, and particularly to those Members who have constituency interests. I would like to say at once that, although I am very pleased there is to be no Division on this Amendment, I support it and support it wholeheartedly. It seems to follow the lines of the Motion which my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the other side tabled a little while ago.
This is the third occasion on which we have had a debate on flooding in the House this Session. I made a long speech on the subject on 11th November and I do not intend to repeat the points I made then. However, I am sure that everybody who heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government this afternoon was tremendously impressed, as I was, net only by his obvious command of the situation as a whole, but also by his demonstrable good faith.
I trust him, and I am sure that the House and country as a whole trust him, and are grateful to him for what he is already doing. He was good enough to say that he feels there are lessons which can be learned. Government policy, as I understand it, consists at present of bringing aid to various localities which have suffered by making up the difference in the amount raised publicly by appeal funds, and the like, and the total need.
My right hon. Friend recognised that in some cases those differences will be very great. Some help has already been given in particular areas which have asked for help. The Minister has pointed out that a £ for £ scheme, as I suggested on 11th November, and as other people have suggested would not be enough. That is particularly true of the Dulverton rural area, where the need is estimated to be £4,000 and where, so far, the local relief fund has only contributed £400. That is not because the people in the far West Country are not generous people, but because they are too poor to give any more money and because there are the conflicting claims of the Dulverton Relief Fund, in my friend's constituency, the Taunton Relief Fund, and so on.
What about places where there are no local relief funds at all? They will have to be dealt with. It is not easy to start new relief funds at this time. There are too many. Wales has been very sensible in this matter in having only a single fund. That will make it much easier to deal with all the difficulties.
Then there are the wider difficulties which emerge. I was interested in my right hon. Friend's speech when he said, in effect, "How are we to find the money to clear the tributaries?" It is the

tributaries and culverts in my constituency, particularly the western end of it, which are the trouble, because they are silted up. That has brought flooding in small local areas, the names of which do not get into the newspapers. In the Dulverton area alone I am told that at least £4,000 will be required to do the necessary work of clearing. I am glad that the money will be available through the good offices of my right hon. Friend.
If that is true of the smaller schemes, what about the larger schemes? We know that in and around Taunton £3 million has to be spent. That is a lot of money. We cannot begin to find it ourselves. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give an assurance tonight that that money will be forthcoming. There is the difficulty that although we have my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government here, and although the debate is to be wound up by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, this is, in part, a matter for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Some confusion arises in that regard in the minds of some people and makes dealing with the problem so much more difficult.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in a speech which he delivered with his customary clarity—I always enjoy listening to him—made a reference to me. He was good enough to give me notice that he might refer to me and I appreciate that notice. If I may "pull his leg" in return, may I say that I thought he spoiled a jolly good speech with a jolly bad point. However good the speech was, it still remains a poor point, a point the importance of which is easy to exaggerate. He said that I had met some criticism in my constituency because I had said publicly, and I am ready to repeat it now, that, on the whole, I was satisfied with what the Government are doing.
I would point out to the House that Taunton is not the whole of my constituency. The county town of Taunton is a very important part of it, but it reaches from Sedgmoor, on the one hand, almost as far as Athelney, where Alfred is reputed to have burned the cakes, and covers almost 75 per cent. of Exmoor, on the other. What local councillors say in Taunton is not typical of


what is said in the whole of my constituency. I know, because I have been there and I have talked to my constituents.
Furthermore, my right hon. Friend, I thought, answered the point very well when he said, by inference—I certainly say it—that the councillors who said that I did not know what I was talking about when I said the Government had done well enough had not done their homework, because I know, and everybody else knows, what they apparently did not know, and that is that as soon as Taunton puts in a request for money it can have it. So there is no reason for anybody to get excited or alarmed, or to suggest that the Government are not doing their stuff. The truth is that the two councillors concerned, who are most admirable fellows normally, are political opponents of mine.
I would like to turn to the question of the national relief fund, to which reference has already been made, and which many hon. Members, and many people outside the House, have advocated. My right hon. Friend has made a case against a national relief fund at this time, and I accept what he has to say. But I hope that that does not mean that the idea is shelved, because it should not be.
There was a reluctance on the part of the Government, rightly or wrongly, to agree to the establishment of a national relief fund in the early days of the flooding, when Exeter first caught it. They felt that it was only a local matter. They did not realise the possibility that flooding would become as widespread as it has become.
It may be said that perhaps there was no need for a national relief fund at that time and that it was not reasonable to expect the Government to realise that the situation would deteriorate as much as it has. They are not prophets, certainly not weather prophets. They cannot be, whatever may be thought about the Prime Minister's responsibility for the weather.
Perhaps that is the explanation, but it is not an argument for not establishing a national relief fund to cope with future emergencies. I feel very strongly that it is quite likely that we shall have

further flood disasters. We have had them in my constituency over the years. There was the Lynmouth flood disaster, which affected us. We have the current flood disaster.
As my right hon. Friend said, the hills and the ground in general are saturated. I am terrified lest further flooding should occur in the west of England, both this year and in future years. As the hon. Member for Fulham rightly said, times change in matters of land drainage. Almost before one realises it, the drainage situation has changed completely, due to the differences in modern techniques—land drainage, building, use of water, etc. I hope that the Government do not rule out the idea of a flood relief fund to deal with future emergencies. We all hope that they will not happen, but we must be prepared.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said on 11th November that he thought that such a fund might discourage private charities. I have thought about that a great deal since my hon. Friend said it. I do not accept it and I do not believe it. It might encourage private charity rather than leave it in the somewhat confused state it is in at the moment with a multiplicity of individual relief funds.
The administrative aspect must be thought of. I should like to see a permanent secretariat and organisation, ready all the time to go anywhere and do anything. Legislation would be required for that, but if legislation were introduced I am certain that the House would pass it virtually on the nod. We could discuss some of the finer points, but legislation of that type would have the broadest possible all-party support.
I do not see why we should not have a scheme analogous to the war damage scheme which existed during the war. During the course of the debate on 11th November my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary asked me, by inference, if I would agree to additional taxation for this purpose. I would. Any householder, house occupier or premises-occupier would be perfectly willing to pay an extra 10s. or £1 a year to set up a central fund to be available for this purpose. Just as the community accepted responsibility for the affairs of


the country as a whole through the war damage scheme, so it would be ready to accept responsibility for a national flood disaster fund today.
It has also been suggested that local control might be difficult. I do not believe it. Though there should be a permanent central administration and secretariat, I do not suggest that that need in any way take responsibility away from local authorities. A local authority could easily make its case and present it and then administer the money which was made available for local purposes thereafter. The argument based on local control is not a valid argument against the establishment of the fund.
It has also been suggested that a local fund might discourage local insurances. I do not believe it. I said in the debate on 11th November that the fact that I am to receive a generous pension from a benevolent Government at the end of my days does not discourage me, if and while I can afford it, from making my own private insurance arrangement. I do not think that a national fund would discourage people from making their own private insurance arrangements. Why should it?
Turning to the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), in my experience insurance companies have been very generous in dealing with claims, particularly in and around Exeter. It is right that we should pay tribute to them on that account and say to them that the idea of a national relief fund in no way cuts across their business or interferes with it. It supplements it. Bearing in mind some of the points made in the debate about the difficulty of insurance, it is obvious that it needs to be done urgently.
I hope that the Government will not dismiss this suggestion completely, but will accept a suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland), in his excellent speech, and hold an inquiry. Let us have a debate upon the subject later, by all means.
Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for what he is doing. I repeat that we accept his pledges, which, we know, are made in good faith and will be implemented.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: This is the third occasion on which we have debated floods recently. The debate today has ranged over this very vital problem in the same pattern as it did previously. The problem is still the same. The suffering remains the same. The distress amongst the flooded out homes and families remains the same.
This is not a new problem by any means. It occurs regularly year after year. I can recall that in July, 1956, and again in October, 1958, we discussed the excessive flooding in the West, the South-West, and in the northern regions of Britain after visits had been made to those areas by the then Ministers of Agriculture to see the flooded scenes for themselves.
As a result of floods there are always public alarm, generous Press coverage of the various picturesque, but tragic scenes, public outcry, and a relief fund. Shortly afterwards everything is forgotten and there is public indifference.
There are always emergency operations. Glowing and deserved tributes have been paid today from both sides, especially by the Minister, who is in a position to know more about it than any of the rest of us, to the voluntary work which has been done by private individuals as well as by organisations of one kind or another, helping to alleviate distress and bring help to those in need.
Many families have been in repeated distress during recent floodings. Some families have been flooded out from their homes five or six times. No sooner have they got their walls dry and their furniture clean than they have to start all over again because of a new flood.
If we are to depend to a large extent upon local funds, local administration and local help, without very much help from the central Government, it means, in effect, that we are asking those who suffer from floods to contribute generously towards the relief of their own suffering. Many speakers have emphasised that this is a national problem, and I agree with them. It is a national calamity and should be treated as such to a much greater extent than the Minister has announced today.
The right hon. Gentleman did not announce one thing which has been


admitted in all previous debates and discussions on the problems created by floods. He did not announce any permanent preventive action for the future. This is one of the items mentioned in the Amendment. We call for three things. We call on the Government, first,
to give all necessary help to those individuals and local authorities particularly affected …
We call on them, secondly,
to establish a national fund for the relief of distress caused by floods or similar disasters …
Thirdly, but by no means last in importance, we call on them
to devise adequate measures to prevent flood damage in future.
That is one thing about which nothing has been said. Is that because it would cost too much? I remember the historic words of a Minister of Agriculture immediately before the war, when urged to get more cultivation and growth of food in this country because of the threat of a war and the possible restriction of imports. He said, "It is all very well to ask for more food to be grown and for the cultivation of all our agricultural produce, but what fools we should look if we did that and there was no war".
That Minister, like many other Conservative Ministers of Agriculture, could neither look ahead nor plan ahead and, as a result, was faced with difficulties that he had not the imagination to foresee. Can we not have the imagination to foresee that the floods from which we are suffering now are not isolated phenomena? We have had them before, though perhaps not so badly. We know that we shall have floods again. We know, roughly, what are their causes, and we know, roughly, what can be done to prevent floods of this magnitude occurring in the future—

Mr. John Wells: Surely, the expenditure of £6 million a year by the river boards cannot be written off as nothing.

Mr. Jeger: That is mainly for maintenance.

Mr. Wells: No, it is on capital works.

Mr. Jeger: But there is a very great deal of work waiting to be done that will cost far more than £6 million. That amount is a very small item, indeed,

when one bears in mind how much work is waiting to be done.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) spoke of culverts and tributaries that needed clearing, but which would cost £4,000 to clear. Obviously, a small internal drainage board will find it very difficult to raise as much money as that. That is only one instance, but we can all think of others in our rural constituencies where the work would require the expenditure of very large sums of money.
The River Went Drainage Board needs a new pump that would cost £50,000. How many items of that kind are there throughout the country? Without a comprehensive survey it would be very difficult to assess the total value, but I do not think that the £6 million per annum now being spent is anywhere near sufficient to cater for the difficulties we have to meet. If it was, we should not now have the difficulties; the amount being spent on flood prevention would have proved adequate. The mere fact that we have these floods, and have them repeatedly, shows that we are not spending enough on flood prevention.
I want to dwell for a moment on the cost, not to individual householders in villages and scattered hamlets but to the farming community. I do not know how much is being lost to the country in food and in feedingstuffs—in peas, potatoes, barley and clover—but my farmers tell me that they have lost thousands of acres of them by the floods. They also tell me that we shall probably have to import more food to make good these deficiencies, and that that will affect our balance-of-payments position and our dollar expenditure.
In South Yorkshire, where my constituency lies, they tell me a lot about the loss of foodstuffs, and the waste of farmers' labour in first cultivating their fields and then seeing all their work go to waste. The Yorkshire Post has for quite a time now carried some very fine photographs and descriptions of these occurrences. I congratulate that newspaper's photographers on their enterprise in venturing into such horrible areas to take such good photographs that they have brought home to all of us the effect of these floods on the lives of the people in the rural areas.
Some of these farmers, when they have applied for assistance, have been told that their land is always liable to flooding. It is low-lying land. In the beginning, it was drained marshland. The Dutchmen who came over 300 years ago to drain the marshes in the Dutch fashion did a very good job, but the land is always liable to flooding. At the same time, those farmers were told to grow more food, and more feeding stuffs for their cattle. They responded to that appeal, and now are suffering for their patriotism in responding to it.
Local authorities in the area have built new housing estates on land which, according to official information, might be liable to flooding. Nevertheless, they have had to settle their communities and pull down their rural slums. They have had to provide better housing accommodation.
It is an irony that in some of those areas where they have an excess of water at this time of year they need water carts during the summer months to bring water to their farms and their cattle. That is one of the reasons why we press for a water conservation scheme that will not only help to prevent floods and alleviate the damage caused, but will make use of the excess of water, which could be collected at times like this, properly stored in reservoirs, and be available during the dry summer months particularly in those scattered rural areas.
In my area, we are subjected to subsidence. There are several coal mines in the district and they play havoc with the drainage system. When it comes to negotiating with authorities on drainage and about letting off flood water by some means, we have to deal with the National Coal Board, and in regard to canals, we have to deal with the British Transport Commission.
Most of the internal drainage boards are so small that they are not able adequately to deal with the volume of water flowing from their drainage because they cannot afford the necessary large items of capital equipment. We also have a large mass of water, not only from industrial sources but from the moorlands. From those moorlands, it drains through the villages, overflowing the steams and flooding agricultural land and villages as well.
My local farmers tell me that they have been flooded out in ten of the last twelve years. This points to 1960 not being an isolated year, although it may vary in intensity. Flooding happens almost regularly, and we should be thinking seriously about preventative expenditure to stop recurrences.
A little while ago I was approached by some people in a small village just outside Goole who told me that their village was flooded regularly every year, and had been for the last fifty years. When I asked why they had not done anything about it, they said that they had got used to it. I might add that those who approached me were the younger members of the community, who thought that they might depart from their parent's attitude of strict toleration and that I might be persuaded to do something about it.
I discovered that the floods occurred as a result of the water overflowing the embankment. When I inquired why the embankment could not be raised, I was told that that issue had been fought over for many years between the Yorkshire Ouse River Board, the British Transport Commission and the Minister of Agriculture, and that it had been impossible to come to any settlement as each of the three parties blamed the other two for their inactivity.
I finally got the matter settled by threatening to take it up with the Prime Minister and asking him to decide which of the authorities was ultimately responsible. I called a conference of the various organisations, and managed to get them to agree to raise the embankment at a cost of £123,000. There has since been no flooding in that little village.
That shows that if there is money available the job can be done. Indeed, I have here an extract from a statement on the floods made by the engineer of the River Went Drainage Board, who said, quite wisely:
It is all a question of economics; you can do anything with money.
That is the real solution—one can do anything with money. But, with due respect to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) one cannot do very much with £6 million a year. We cannot do much with that; it requires very


much more expenditure than that to do the work which is necessary to prevent the floods occurring so regularly.
There is also the question of the renewal of pumps, which are overstrained through excessive work. Many of them were put in many years ago, when the small drainage boards were first brought into action, and they are now worn out. They need replacement, and the replacement cost is much heavier than the original cost. They are very expensive, and beyond the resources of these small boards. That all points to the fact that this is a national matter and should not be regarded as a local one. It needs a centralised plan, whereby the central Government would use as their agents the local boards and local authorities, but under which the bulk of the finance should be raised and distributed from national resources and not local resources. Very often, it is the local areas that need most help, and they are the most impoverished ones, incapable of raising the resources they need for their own assistance.
Therefore, I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us how his mind is working in the direction of a national plan for disposal of surplus water due to floods, a national plan for the erection of such dams, embankments, walls and other devices, including pumps, as can alleviate floods and prevent them from doing so much damage, a national plan for the conservation of surplus water, so that we do not have to go along into the summer dreading the fact that we are going from flood to drought.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Clive Bossom: I welcome very much the opportunity to say one or two things before the debate comes to an end. Herefordshire was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his speech. Fortunately, we have been spared the ordeal of a bad flood since 1947. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the placid River Wye did rise by 19 ft. the other week, and that was the worst we have had since 1795.
I should also like to say how heartened we were by the very prompt assurance by the Government that they would supplement local appeals, which, happily,

have gone extremely well, and would give advice and assistance wherever it was required. This was greatly appreciated by our local authorities. Like all other speakers in the debate, I should also like to associate myself with the praise for the services of the police and firemen, Civil Defence, W.V.S. and all the anonymous "Good Samaritans" for having done such magnificent work.
There are two suggestions that I should like to put forward, and I hope that the Government will look further into them. First, there is the need for a better flood warning system. In my part of the country, the Wye River Board and the police between them have done a good job, especially to threatened houses in the villages and towns. In many cases, they were able to give 24 hours' notice, but the real problem lies in the rural areas, where not everyone was warned. Fortunately, this time, no human lives were lost, but a tremendous lot of livestock was lost. In one area alone, Whitney-on-Wye, Eardisley and Preston-on-Wye, which is only a small area, we lost nearly 600 sheep and 50 cattle, which were drowned.
Today, with the electrification of nearly 85 per cent. of our rural areas, most people have a television set and nearly everyone has a wireless set. The B.B.C. and I.T.A. cover the news of the flooding, and I feel that they could be asked to do much more, because half the battle is to have early warning, so as to be able to move livestock and even household goods.
I should like to see special news flashes on the floods, with some new warning device, such as "Flood, force 1, 2 or 3", and also the measurements of the actual rise of the rivers in different areas. That warning would be very useful to farmers, and also for motorists. I am quite confident that in a real emergency, most of our fortunate and dry viewers would be long-suffering during interruptions of their favourite programmes. Another quick and effective method of warning which has been touched on, would be to have installed a series of sirens in special areas, because they are easy to operate and easy to hear.
The other point I should like to make concerns Civil Defence. How I wish that we could change that name to "Civil Aid", because the word


"defence" does not apply in war or in peace. If we changed the name, I think that it would help recruiting; and I should like to see the entire r###le of this highly trained and skilled personnel reviewed. I have always maintained that they have a real, peace-time value, which could be considerably expanded. Local councils call on them to set up rest centres, to take round fuel, and to do heavy salvage work. I feel that with a good early warning system they could be called upon to help much earlier on, and especially in helping old people, who usually live in the older parts of the towns and villages, which are the areas which become flooded.
In these areas liable to flooding, Civil Defence should move in early to help the old people to move their furniture, take up their rugs, sandbag their doors, and, in general, prepare their homes for the onslaught that is coming. Their work could be much more valuable, if after this early warning, they could help in the prevention of flood damage. I hope that while there is a lull the Government will look into these two suggestions—the better warning system, and the better use of Civil Defence, which I should prefer to call "Civil Aid".

6.46 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): We have had a most useful and constructive debate, and I will endeavour to reply to some of the points raised by hon. Members, although my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government dealt so inclusively with the whole question in his speech that my task will be very much easier than it would otherwise have been.
I should like to turn at once to the very pleasant duty of extending my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for his extremely thoughtful, helpful and constructive speech this afternoon. Those of us particularly, like myself, who have actually worked with his predecessor, will know how much we expect from hon. Members who represent Tiverton. Rarely have I heard so much meat in a maiden speech delivered in ten minutes, and I hope that I shall not be offending against the conventions of

the House if I take up one or two practical points which my hon. Friend raised.
First, I can assure him that we will certainly look at the question of businesses using imported machinery, but I am equally sure that he will realise that one of the difficulties here, which arises in so many contexts, is that it is particularly difficult to trace a particular item of imported machinery or raw materials to an area affected by flooding. Another point which my hon. Friend raised, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) also raised, is the question whether the insurance companies are doing all that they might be doing at the present time. I hope that there will be wide publicity given to my hon. Friends' remarks, because it is important that policies should be comprehensible and that their exact import is understood by those who take them out.
I can tell both hon. Members that companies within the British Insurance Association have already received over 20,000 claims, totalling over £1 million, of which about half has so far been paid, for floods prior to 1st December. In addition, there will be the Lloyd's claims, because Lloyd's are outside the British Insurance Association. There are also additional claims for floods subsequent to 1st December.
I am also told, and the House will be glad to hear, that quite a number of businessmen, and also private householders, near the River Exe requested and were granted flood insurance since the October floods, and their claims will swell the total bill to be met. In the case of one large business, which had no floodcover in October and sustained many thousands of pounds worth of damage, insurance cover was subsequently granted in November, only a few days before new floods arrived even deeper on its premises. Therefore, I think that it can be said that the insurance companies have been playing their proper part in helping to combat the effects of these disasters.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Elfed Davies) both raised a very practical point—whether the public authorities are all aware of


their responsibilities, what they can do and what they cannot do. The hon. Member for Rhondda, East specifically mentioned the National Assistance Board. I am informed that the Board officers started giving cash assistance in Wales immediately, that is to say, as from Monday, 5th December. Payments for coal, for food or for other immediate needs were made to anyone who was in financial difficulty. Of course, the Board can give help only to those who are in financial need and, if a few applications were turned down, that was because the persons concerned were understood to be in a position to provide for themselves.
The Assistance Board's officers have standing instructions on these matters, but, of course, a great deal must be left to the discretion of local officials. I fully realise that here, as is bound to happen, there are a great many borderline cases. If the hon. Member wants to take up any individual case, I think that his right course would be to take it up with the Chairman of the Board. The Board has difficult duties to fulfil, and I think that there are bound to be some borderline cases.
Several hon. Members asked whether our warning systems are working properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Bossom) and several others referred to this. I am told that, on the whole, our warning systems work very well and that most towns have had their warnings in reasonable time. The difficulty is apt to come on the edges of catchment areas, and this is one of the many lessons which we must learn. Of course, the best warning systems in the world cannot work unless people take notice of them and, inevitably, it is a matter of observing the warning as well as giving it.
It has been made absolutely clear by this debate that, on the whole, everyone concerned has done all that could be expected in combating the effects of this very great disaster. It is very easy for those of us who have not been affected by the floods to talk in this objective way. We are all apt to think of the effect of houses and property being completely destroyed, but in some ways it is very nearly as bad to live in a house which has been thoroughly spoiled. I

recall my father, who did a good deal of work in France after the First World War, saying that in his view the most shocking sight he saw in France was not Rheims, where the cathedral had been partly destroyed, but at Soissons, where every single thing in a large town of many thousands of people had been completely spoiled. In large measure, I think, that is the worst type of problem we have here.
There has been an enormous amount of voluntary effort in connection with the flood disasters. I am told that the total of voluntary contributions to date to the earlier flood funds, that is to say, funds opened before the new floods on 3rd December, stands at £108,000. On 3rd November, my right hon. Friend gave the undertaking, which has been mentioned several times today, that the Government would be prepared to supplement locally raised funds wherever it became clear that these would not be sufficient to meet needs and, so far as expenditure on public services was concerned, the Government would be prepared to consider sympathetically requests for special assistance once it was clear that without such assistance there would be an unreasonable burden on the rates.
This afternoon, my right hon. Friend gave details of all the Exchequer payments on account. I will remind the House of the total. The total to date, up to 15th December, amounts to about £209,000. This will be met in the short-term out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, but, of course, there will have to be a Supplementary Estimate which, I am sure, the House will grant without question. The figure that I have given is the total so far.
I feel that the decision in Wales and Monmouthshire to have a general fund is very wise, and to that general fund the Government have contributed £100,000.

Mr. Jeger: Does the amount the hon. Gentleman has given include payments by the National Assistance Board?

Sir E. Boyle: No, that does not include individual payments by the Board. The figures I have given relate simply to payments made in accordance with the statement of my right hon. Friend on 2nd November.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), and several hon. Members opposite have asked about the establishment of a national disaster fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said that he hoped that we would not shelve or forget the possibility of a national relief fund. The Government certainly have not closed their minds for all time to such a proposal. I am bound to say, however, that I think that hon. Members overrate a little the likelihood of large subscriptions to a national disaster fund at a time when floods are completely out of our minds.
I think that some of the arguments used in earlier debates are worth considering carefully. All I would say this evening is that we are now considering the present emergency, but, of course, all Government Departments concerned, and the Government as a whole, will, naturally, take into account the lessons to be learned from these disasters in all their aspects and consider what we ought to do to meet any situation which may arise in the future.
This leads me to say a word in answer to the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). It is worth remembering that the total capital expenditure on land drainage, although it may not be as high as it should be, is nearly half as much again as it was a few years ago. As I told the House in another debate a few nights ago, in the financial year 1956–57, when I was previously at the Treasury, the

total capital investment for this purpose was only just a little over £4 million. It is now 150 per cent. of that figure.
I do not see how it could possibly be wise to invest for this purpose in such a way as to insure against the consequences of the sort of floods which occur once every 200 years. One has to keep a balance. But, of course, as I said the other night—I repeat it now—when we are planning the future public capital expenditure programme, we shall take into account the flood disaster of this year. I assure hon. Members that, even if we do not have an opportunity to debate this subject again in the near future, as we may possibly not have, the Government not only congratulate all those who have played such a fine part in combating the effects of the flood disasters so far, but will consider fully what should be done for the future and will take into account the lessons to be learned in both central and local administration should similar disasters occur again.

Mr. G. Thomas: Will any exceptional work undertaken by local authorities as a result of the floods be the subject of compensation by the Government?

Sir E. Boyle: We should have to look at all aspects of local government expenditure on their merits.

Mr. M. Stewart: For the procedural reason that I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA

6.58 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action in the United Nations and in the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to ensure that the Government of South Africa carries out the solemn obligations it undertook in accepting the Mandate for South-West Africa, or surrenders it to the United Nations so that alternative trusteeship arrangements can be made.
We have asked for this Amendment to be debated today, and we are grateful for facilities for so doing, because the debate on the position of South-West Africa is taking place in the United Nations at this very moment. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government is being made up day by day in the various Motions coming before the Fourth Committee, and we should like the House to have an opportunity to express its view.
The history of South-West Africa is brief and bloody. There is no need to recapitulate it in detail. After an unhappy experience under the Government of the Germans before 1914, the territory was surrendered by the Germans to the Allied Powers at the end of the First World War and it was given in trust by them to South Africa. Later, the League of Nations confirmed the mandate under the system which had been established. From 1920 until the setting up of the United Nations, the State of South-West Africa was administered by South Africa. When the United Nations took over, a trusteeship system was set up whose purpose—and here I quote from Article 76 of the Charter of the United Nations—was
to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence …
Under the international trusteeship system. Article 77 laid down that territories could be
voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
There were a number of mandates held from the League of Nations, and, although I am not an expert lawyer, I

understand that they were not obliged to surrender their mandates to the United Nations and receive the mandate back from that organisation. But the record shows that every state which had a mandate from the League of Nations surrendered it to the United Nations and received it back in due course from the new organisation to which it thereupon became responsible for carrying out the basic objectives which I have read, except one. The one, I need hardly add, was South Africa. However, she did not at that time wholly dispute that there might be certain advantages to be had from the United Nations. She therefore proposed to the United Nations that she should be regarded as having control over this territory and that it should become a part of South Africa. That would have been very convenient for her, but, in fact, the right so to do was denied by the United Nations.
The position seems to have remained so far that South Africa still holds the mandate from the League of Nations, even although that authority has disappeared, and that she cannot legally be called to account, except in certain circumstances, by the United Nations to which she has no direct responsibility. Because she failed voluntarily to put the territory under the trusteeship system of the United Nations she has been acting on her own. She has, however—and here the complication arises—certain obligations which stem from her own membership of the United Nations, because she signed the declarations of the United Nations. If one argued on a strictly legalistic ground, it would be possible to say, and certainly for lawyers to argue, that she is in breach of a number of the declarations which she signed when she became a member of the United Nations, irrespective of whether she placed this territory under the trusteeship system of the United Nations.
To bring the history up to date, it is fair to say that since 1949 South-West Africa has been virtually annexed to South Africa. The whole apparatus of a police State has been imported into this mandated territory. The system of apartheid has been imposed in its full rigour. Men and women have been alienated from the land which they had tilled.
The citizens of South-West Africa have been denied the elementary rights of free men everywhere to have a share in their government. They have no opportunity of voting for their representatives. They have no representation. Certain people are told that they are regarded as representatives of the people of South-West Africa in the South African Parliament. Indeed, when the recent referendum took place on whether South Africa should become a republic, these people, who against their will have been annexed by South Africa, were used to swell the republican majority. The Times, a newspaper not notably given to exaggerated statements, at any rate on the side of freedom, said that the mandate had been stolen, and I agree.
A year ago there was a revolt at Windhoek. It did not attract a great deal of attention in the Press, not nearly as much as Sharpeville. Windhoek is in South-West Africa. Africans were killed. Many were wounded and imprisoned. The whole history of the mandate, particularly since the Nationalists took over, has been one of increasing oppression and slavery.
The purpose of this debate is to ask the Government what they think about and what their attitude is in this matter. I do not think they will dissent from my description of history, even though they may not like all that I have said about the actions of the South African Government. But we know that the British Government disapprove of apartheid. A year ago we tried to get them to say so in this House. At the end of a heated debate we had failed to get the Minister of State to declare himself one way or the other. A month later, however, the Prime Minister went to South Africa and, fortunately, declared himself in a notable speech. Since then, and following the tragedy of Sharpeville, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Foreign Secretary, has gone on record as saying that in his view apartheid was immoral and unworkable.
We have had a fairly clear declaration from the Government. Publicly they have gone on record on the question of apartheid. I take it that in South-West Africa the British Government disapprove of the imposition of apartheid. Am I right? I think that the House would like to know. I take it from what they

have said on various occasions that they disapprove of the virtual annexation of the territory by South Africa in defiance of her trust. Am I right? I am sure that the House would like to know. We have not had a clear statement so far. I take it that they disapprove of the failure of South Africa to present reports on her trusteeship to the United Nations. Am I right? We would like to hear the Government say so. If they do, it would give a great deal of comfort to people in these territories who are waiting for a glimpse of the attitude of the British Government.
I do not wish to weary the House by reciting all the facts, but we know that on fourteen occasions the United Nations has asked the South African Government to prepare and present reports of its trusteeship and that fourteen times they have refused to do anything of the sort. One slight concession has been made, notably since Sharpeville. I believe that since June this year the South African Government have been supplying documents to the United Nations giving some account of what is taking place in these territories, disclaiming that they have any responsibility for so doing and are doing it merely as a matter of good will. I take it that the British Government believe that the people in this mandated territory, like those in the rest of Africa where the British writ runs, have the right to determine their own future. Am I right? The House would like to know the Government's views.
I take it that they hold the view that forty years ago the South African Government undertook to accept this solemn trust with a view to bringing these people forward to self-government? Am I right? Do they believe that? The House and the country would like to know. If the answer to these questions is "Yes"—and on the basis of what the Government have said in other places I do not see how the answer can be anything else, at any rate if they are to retain their selfrespect—what do the Government propose to do about it? Whatever the law of the mandate, the spirit of the mandate has undoubtedly been broken. And so we have a right to ask the Government what they propose to do.
In the United Nations, so far this session the Government have an


inglorious record. We managed to get up our hearts so high that on a resolution which asked that the United Nations Children's Fund might venture on some charitable purpose in South-West Africa, we managed to vote for it. That is the only thing for which we have managed to vote in the whole long series of resolutions which have been presented. The House would be astonished if I were to go through all the resolutions on which we have managed to abstain.
In very small company, we managed to abstain on a motion which deplored and disapproved the policy practised by the Government of South Africa contrary to its obligations under the international mandate of December, 1920. We managed to abstain on a motion deprecating the application in the territory of South Africa of the policy of apartheid. We even managed to abstain on a resolution which invited the United Nations Committee on South-West Africa to go to South-West Africa immediately to investigate the situation prevailing there. When the whole resolution was put, we managed to abstain on the whole lot.
I do not wish to take the House through all the resolutions except to say that the Government's bloodless record on South-West Africa in the United Nations this session does them no credit whatever. I understand that the reason for this is that Ethiopia and Liberia, two States who were independent and were members of the League of Nations, have taken the case of South-West Africa to the International Court. It was said by our representative at the Fourth Committee—I have a copy of his statement; the Government put it in the Libary—that we treasured the independence of the judiciary to the point where we would like nothing to be done by the United Nations that would be likely whilst the matter was sub judice to prejudice any discussions which might be going on. I congratulate the Government.
The question follows, however, if that is the Government's attitude, whether they will accept the decision of the International Court when it is handed down. Will the Government of South Africa accept the decision of the International

Court? If they do, the Government may well have a case, but they must tell us this evening what is their attitude towards this matter if we are to accept their bona fides in the question of abstaining because the matter is before the International Court.
I look at the situation with grave suspicion when I see that Mr. Eric Louw was advancing that argument as a reason for doing nothing, rather like Satan quoting the Bible to 'his own ends. Any of us who met Mr. Eric Louw when he was over here and heard him speaking about the mandates and South Africa's attitude towards them can have no doubt at all that his approach to this matter is merely that the International Court has been presented as a convenient manœuvre to enable him to dodge debate, discussion and decision in the United Nations.
I do not want to do the Government an injustice, but I hope they will make it clear that that is not their intention. I hope they will make it clear that within the limits that are open to them in the United Nations they will take such action as is open through supporting resolutions that are put forward dealing with this subject to try to bring South Africa to a sense of the obligations that she undertook.
I can well imagine what the Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office, will say. I have listened to him so often that I could almost make his speech for him before he gets up. I would not want to have to do it. I hope that I would rewrite it. Assuming, however, that on behalf of the Government he says "We are sorry" about the United Nations, I come to the second half of the Amendment. What will the right hon. Gentleman do concerning Commonwealth responsibilities? He is not inhibited there. Indeed, I understand that the Government's attitude has always been that we were not likely to get the best out of South Africa by voting her down steadily in the United Nations and that we must use our influence on her as a member of the Commonwealth.
The opportunity is shortly to present itself. We understood from an Answer given by the Leader of the House the other day that the future position of South Africa as a member of the Commonwealth is likely to be discussed at


the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference, which, I understand, is being discussed for March of next year. What will the Government do there? Do they intend to raise the issue? If the Commonwealth means anything, Commonwealth countries have the right to say to a nation which desires to raise the question of her membership, "Are you in good standing before you become a member of our society?" I do not think that any Member of the House, where-ever he sits—at least, I hope, no Member of the House—would take the view that South Africa is in good standing on the question of the administration of the mandate.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What about Ghana?

Mr. Callaghan: The noble Lord is a splendid man for drawing red herrings across the trail. No doubt, he will make a speech if he so wishes. At the moment, I am discussing membership of the Commonwealth in relation to South Africa. I put the question quite openly. Is this not an opportunity of doing what, I hope, even the noble Lord wants—that is, to get rid of the system of apartheid, to get rid of the oppression in South-West Africa, to stop the alienation of men and women from their lands and to give them representative government? I hope that the noble Lord will make a speech and will make his position clear, because this is a moment on this sort of issue when everybody should say clearly where he stands. I hope that the noble Lord will have no hidden reservations on the subject. If he has, there is a deep gulf between him and most of the British people on the subject.
When that discussion takes place, from what has been said by the Prime Ministers of Nigeria, of Malaya and of Ghana, there is no doubt that the question will come up. I see no reason why we should not use this question of the continued membership of the Commonwealth, if South Africa desires it, as a means of inviting her either to abolish the system of apartheid and all that flows from it in South-West Africa or, alternatively, to surrender her mandate.
To whom should she surrender it? That is a matter for discussion. There are a number of possibilities. She could surrender it to the United Nations and

it could then be given in trust to somebody else. Looking at the record of Britain in relation to trusteeships, taking Tanganyika as the most notable example, although it would be a heavy burden I would feel that if the mandate fell into the care of Britain, we, including the present Government, could be relied upon to discharge it honourably and to bring these people forward to self-government. The mandate could, of course, be surrendered to the United Nations, who might feel that they could hand it over to the Commonwealth as a whole for the Commonwealth to administer these territories. That would be a wonderful venture in making the Commonwealth a reality. A third suggestion which has been put forward is that a group of African States could take responsibility for the welfare and advancement of these territories.
There is no shortage of possibilities for looking after the future of these territories if only the South African Government can be put in a position in which she is willing to surrender the mandate. It would be not only right, but wise, to do this. Wisdom and morality walk hand in hand on this issue, as, I hope, they do on many other issues.
Let there be no doubt that our position will be increasingly challenged by the U.S.S.R. and the other members of the Communist Internationale. The statement issued at the end of the recent meeting in Moscow has been widely, hopefully and properly regarded as a victory for the idea that war is not inevitable, that war can be prevented and that peace can be preserved and made secure. Those are the words of the manifesto itself, and the reason given is the growing, economic, scientific and technical strength of the U.S.S.R. Whilst attention has been concentrated on that and mankind has breathed a sigh of relief, there was another aspect of the manifesto to which not nearly so much attention has been given. This was the passage which dealt in a very significant way with the abolition of colonialism.
It we are to move, as I trust we are, into a period of lessening international tension, with the possible threat of the H-bomb gradually moving away—and I do not think that this is impossible—we


shall face, as everyone knows, the challenge of what they call peaceful coexistence, under which a powerful, well-organised, centrally directed system will challenge what the West can do in these territories and challenge it very powerfully. I have not the slightest doubt that the economic measures and the Socialist measures which one will find in countries of Eastern Europe, will become increasingly powerful against the uncoordinated, planless society in which the West is living at present.
That is a subject for another discussion, but I draw the attention of the Minister of State particularly to the fact that South Africa was mentioned in this manifesto and described as a cruel and vicious régime and that the Communist Internationale pledged itself to bring aid and support to the people struggling for freedom.
I regret to say that some people in Southern Rhodesia and in South Africa believe that the challenge by the U.S.S.R. is an argument for greater repression as a way of stopping this Russian influence. I hope that all of us in the House have learned the lessons. One cannot command friendship, one can only deserve it. But I wonder whether the Minister of State has had brought to his notice that only yesterday in the United Nations the U.S.S.R. had a majority for a motion by 35 votes to 32, with many abstentions, calling for independence forthwith for all dependent territories. That vote shows the way the wind of change is blowing in the United Nations. The South African Government will find themselves under increasing pressure from the forces of world opinion and African opinion to change their policies.
I therefore feel that the British Government should be less pusillanimous than they have been on this matter. It would be ironic if their good deeds were smothered because the U.S.S.R. were able to plant the sins of South Africa on them. But if they go on behaving as they are doing today—and I draw the Minister's attention to the debate in the United Nations in which we were specifically coupled with South Africa—we shall find that a great deal of the value of the work we have done will be destroyed.
I will not detain the House much longer because I want a number of my hon. Friends to join in the debate and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will also wish to do so. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) wish to deal with the legal aspects of this question. I have in my hand an excellent pamphlet signed by my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway), called "Mandate in Trust" If I may give the hon. Member a free boost, I should like to say that it is one of the best things of the kind that I have seen and that I hope it will have a large sale. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will wish to speak, and I am sure that he will find it difficult not to vote for our Amendment.
I hope that the Minister of State will agree that, although I have criticised him and his failure, nevertheless the terms of the Amendment are such that if the British Government are true to their owe beliefs and have the courage to say so, they should be willing to accept it and act on it on all possible occasions in the United Nations and in meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

7.25 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I rise to join in the debate rather timorously, because I am not a lawyer. I feel, however, that this is an occasion on which I can support the Amendment, particularly having regard to the discussions at the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference. It seems to me a very good opportunity. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has worded his Amendment in a very considerate manner and I hope that it will prove acceptable to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The time has come to reconsider our position and I should like to make one or two points about the mandate as it stands at present. I understand that it was originally given to South Africa by the principal Allied and Associated Powers of the Treaty of Versailles. It was vested in His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa. If the Union of South Africa becomes a republic, how does this affect the fact


that originally the mandate was given to the Union because it was vested in his Britannic Majesty?
Article II declares that
The Mandatory shall promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants.
Article III declares that
The Mandatory shall see that the slave trade is prohibited and that no forced labour is used except for essential public works and services and then only for adequate remuneration.
Article V says:
The Mandatory shall ensure in the territory freedom of conscience and the free exercise of public worship and shall allow all missionaries, nationals of any States of the League of Nations, to enter into, travel and reside in the territory for the purpose of prosecuting their calling.
Has this been happening? If not, is it not time that we had a change in the way in which the territory is mandated? The Union of South Africa has repeatedly stated that while it is prepared to continue in the spirit of the mandate it thinks that the obligation lapsed with the coming to an end of the League of Nations. On 2nd May, 1933, it was suggested in the Legislative Council that South-West Africa should become the fifth province of the Union of South Africa. There was a referendum at a later date. The Africans of South Africa agreed that they would remain under this supervision, but I understand that they thought that they would be, as they call it, "under the shadow of King George" and did not realise that they would be completely under the control of South Africa.
Until April, 1955, there was a Native Affairs Administration of South-West Africa. This dealt with all activities for the native people. Later, this was changed and now the department has been taken over by the Native Affairs Department of South Africa, which, of course, has a quite different policy towards the natives of South-West Africa. There is also considerable overlapping, because I understand that the Administration of South-West Africa still has some jurisdiction over health and education.
We must be fair and say that in the old Administration of South-West Africa there were many people who did extremely good jobs. They were indepen

dent and they did their best for the people concerned. However, it is a different situation when they have to work under the Native Affairs Department of South Africa.
In studying this problem, one has to consider the nature of the country. I understand that it is about the size of France with five or six major races, including a section in which I am very interested, the bushmen, who number about 9,000. The total population has now risen to 424,632. There are still about 15,000 Germans and there are other Europeans and many non-whites. Over the past nine years there have been considerable inroads into the farmlands because of the influx of so-called land—hungry whites, and that is something which should be looked into. The extension of the Police Zone and the granting of more and more land to white farmers has been done under the mandate of the South African Government and much more land is needed for the native reserves which are overcrowded and overstocked. Furthermore, in the group areas, the urban areas, locations are moved when the South Africans wish to expand them. That is very unsatisfactory for the native people.
There is a good side to the work which South Africa has done, because the Native Affairs Department has greatly helped to increase stock within the reserves, while the Agricultural Department, which is only five years old, has built 44 new dams with the help of local people—essential work. I understand that the native people did the work themselves under supervision and were given "rations" only; and if they were, I would like to know whether that is a system which would be welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, in view of Article III.
The Agricultural Department has done a great deal to improve cattle. In 1954, only 7,751 cattle were sold, but by 1956 the number had risen to more than 17,000. When we are criticising, it is only fair that we should give some credit for what has been done. Sale of products has risen considerably and I understand that the average income is now about £76 10s. a year, whereas in 1949 it was about £31. Therefore, I could not say that the Union of South Africa has not done any good, because it is clear that there have been improvements during


her administration over the years. The Health Commission reported that there was considerable malnutrition among children, although there was some preschool feeding. That is something which should be investigated further, in view of Article II. The time has come when, especially in view of the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, Her Majesty's Government should again take up this matter with South Africa. I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am delighted, but, I confess, not surprised, that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has supported the Amendment, knowing, as many of us do, her notable work for the Anti-Slavery Society and other bodies of a similar character. I can only hope that the excellent lead that she has given from the benches opposite will be suitably and respectfully followed by the Minister of State.
It is our view on this side of the House—and it is to be hoped that it will be reflected on the benches opposite—that, quite apart from the injustices which the South African Government are perpetrating upon the inhabitants of South-West Africa, the South African Government's policy in that territory constitutes a defiance of the United Nations and of the international community itself. I fear that for Her Majesty's Government to condone or excuse it in any way will harm our own standing in the international community and go a good deal of the way to undermining the future of the British Commonwealth itself.
As the issue is likely to come to a head very soon, I regard the presentation of the Amendment as most timely and I hope that tonight the Minister of State will make quite clear where the British Government stand in this matter. My recent experiences in South Africa have led me to the conclusion that if the status quo in South Africa is to be maintained the consequences for the future are truly frightening.
Very recently, the International Commission of Jurists, on behalf of which I had the honour to visit South Africa, has published a report. The report says that

the discriminatory policy of South Africa, which has been extended to the South-West African Territory,
is not only contrary to the generally accepted concepts of justice and the principles of human rights, but also creates a potentially explosive situation which may soon lead to even more widespread internal violence than has already been experienced in South Africa.
When I went to South Africa in the spring of this year, I attended the Sharpeville inquiry and saw there and elsewhere the cruel operation of apartheid in Africa. I believe that apartheid is not only hurting the Africans, but is harming the Afrikaaners as well, in particular by corroding their own standards.
I found a most remarkable illustration of that in an institution which above all should be practising equality before the law, namely the South African Ministry of Justice itself. When I was in Johannesburg, I got a copy of a memorandum of the South African Ministry of Justice on legal aid. It started with the impeccable words:
The only obligation of the State is to ensure that no person is prejudiced in the legal sphere as a result of his poverty.
Excellent sentiment.
Then followed the astonishing words:
The existing legal system in South Africa does not lend itself in the normal way to any possibility of a failure of justice. Such being the case there is no justification for legal aid in criminal cases.
It adds:
The State is satisfied that innocent persons will not be found guilty and that only those who are, in fact, guilty will be condemned.
To crown it all—and I am sure that this will raise memories with you Mr. Speaker—the statement ends:
Possible discharge"—
of an accused—
on technical points is no argument in favour of legal aid.
That approach runs wholly counter to all the standards of modern civilised States who now all accept the duty of providing legal representation for the defence so as to minimise the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Even when that is accomplished, miscarriages of justice, alas, still occur.
The curious feature of the memorandum is that it goes on to say:
In civil cases legal aid appears to be justified. This, however, cannot be said in cases between native and native where native law and custom are to be applied"—


because—
… the Native Commissioner is of opinion that legal aid in his courts is unnecessary because he and his staff are able to and, in effect, do render all the necessary assistance to native litigants and the Department of Justice has accepted this.
I cite this because I believe that the Nationalist Government's attitude towards legal aid is, regrettably, in keeping with their whole attitude and approach to law and justice. Because of their contempt of the rule of law at home, I fear that they are equally contemptuous of international law and of their obligations under it. In 1954, for example, the International Court of Justice, which has consistently and frequently expressed opinions condemning the position taken by the South African Government about South-West Africa, expressed the view that a two-thirds majority vote alone was needed in matters pertaining to South-West Africa.
Mr. Loew reacted to this decision by imputing ill motives to the Court. He said:
We do not care tuppence whether the United Nations observes the two-thirds majority rule or the unanimity rule in dealing with South-West African affairs, because we have consistently said that the United Nations has no right to concern itself with the affairs of South-West Africa.
This attitude constitutes a serious and direct challenge to the authority of the United Nations, which Her Majesty's Government are pledged to support.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, after the last war all the mandatory Powers except South Africa voluntarily submitted a trusteeship agreement for their mandates. The Union of South Africa alone refused to recognise any international rights in its mandated territory. The Union Government alone scorned decisions and rulings of the International Court about the international status of South-West Africa and about the international obligations of the Government of South Africa. Indeed, so far from accepting its international obligations, as the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport said, for a very long time the Union Government have regarded this mandated territory as the fifth province of South Africa, and apartheid, in particular, has been, and is being, enforced there with the same

cruel, fanatical zeal as in South Africa itself.
Whereas, in regard to South Africa itself, the Union Government might contend—although, I think, without proper foundation because apartheid is contrary to the commitments of the South African Government under the United Nations Charter—that their policies in respect of the inhabitants are a matter of domestic jurisdiction, that could not possibly be said in regard to South-West Africa, a territory for which the world is the guardian.
The South African Government have sought to call in aid Article II of the mandate, which provides that the mandatory may apply the laws of the Union of South Africa to the territory, but that Article is prefaced and, as I submit, limited, by the explicit requirement that
The mandatory shall promote to the utmost the moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants of the country.
The hon. Lady has drawn attention to the significance of that responsibility. When one examines the working of apartheid, it is, clearly, quite impossible to reconcile it with the promotion of either well-being or social progress. On the contrary, when one sees it in operation, as I have, in some of the courts outside Johannesburg, where the pass laws are enforced, one sees a pathetic line of impoverished Africans being humiliated, insulted, driven and chased. The pass system is a degrading humiliation, even when it is enforced without brutality.
We have to face the fact that the whole set-up in South-West Africa today is designed principally to keep control in the hands of the small privileged European group and to provide cheap labour for mine and farm by restricting the African's rights to move, to own land, to be educated, and to acquire skills. I remember vividly the wife of a distinguished African to whom I spoke saying, what hurts, above all, is the knowledge that in future our children will never get a chance to be other than hewers of wood and drawers of water". That was said by the wife of a distinguished lawyer, and I had better not say more of her qualifications lest I identify her and cause her suffering.
The International Commission of Jurists has recently designated this


system as legalised slavery, and that is not exaggerated language. In this situation the British Government have a special responsibility, which they have shown little sign of appreciating, for exerting the influence of civilised and proper international standards. The British Government have a historial responsibility because we were one of the principal Allied Powers who made the grant of the mandate to South Africa, a mandate under the terms of which the mandate was conferred on His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the South African Government, language on which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) may have some comment to make.
We have a direct legal and political responsibility. We are the parent of the Commonwealth. We are a progressive mandatory in Africa and we have the right to intervene. I believe that our word can still carry weight in South Africa. After all, the Nationalist Government are opposed not only by all the Africans. There is substantial opposition to Nationalist policies, as I saw and heard for myself, within South Africa, but I am convinced that it is only by tremendous pressure from outside, in particular from Britain and the Commonwealth countries, that the Nationalists will he induced to turn from their present disastrous policies.
Instead of pressing condemnation where condemnation is required, we have, as my hon. Friend said, given aid and comfort to the Nationalists. As long as they can look forward to Britain standing by and supporting and condoning their actions in the United Nations, their contempt of the United Nations will continue. It is deplorable that there has to be pressure time and again from this side of the House, with what support we are able to obtain from the other side, on this matter. I plead for a forthright attitude by the British Government in these critical times.
I hope, for instance, that they will take a sympathetic view of the action of Liberia and Ethiopia in taking the issue of South-West Africa before the International Court of Justice. I hope that they will indicate that they will stand by any decision of that Court and of the United Nations, even if it means terminating South Africa's mandate,

because unless South Africa is prepared to honour its international commitments under its mandate it forfeits all rights to hold and retain it.
Many difficult legal issues anise in relation to the whole matter. I shall resist the invitation of my hon. Friend to embark upon any of them tonight. I merely ask the British Government to give a hand in this matter. So far as there is any question of the power of the United Nations to revoke the mandate in the event of South Africa refusing to honour her responsibilities under it, I hope that the British Government will take a hand in referring the issue to the International Court of Justice and in supporting the international community in seeing that this Commonwealth Government behaves in a civilised fashion.
In the Prime Ministers' Conference there is an unparalleled opportunity for bringing pressure to bear and for making life once more tolerable for millions of people who now suffer under the lash of apartheid.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) is an expert on these legal matters and has told the House that the position of the mandate in South-West Africa appears to be highly complicated. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that I find it difficult to sort out the rights and wrongs on legal grounds. As I understand it, the International Court has held that South Africa cannot be forced to turn the mandate into a trusteeship and at the same time has held that the supervisory functions of the old League of Nations have passed to the United Nations, and the South African Government have refused to recognise this fact. Since 1949 I understand that they have been administering South-West Africa as part of the Union.
That means that the full legal weight of apartheid is being applied in South West Africa. Is this legal in terms of the mandate? The hon. and learned Member quoted one requirement of the mandate as being to promote the moral wellbeing of the people and their social progress. I suppose it could be argued by an Afrikaaner Nationalist that South Africa was doing that by applying the


policy of apartheid. The Nationalists feel that the two-race theory is best for both black and white. I do not think that any Member of this House would agree, but the Nationalists can argue on those lines. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations requires Powers to develop self-government and to take account of the political aspirations of the people. That certainly could not be held to be done in South-West Africa by the Nationalist Government.
It has been pointed out that the legal position is even further complicated by the probability of South Africa becoming a republic. It is not, however, the legal implications that worry me unduly, they are so complicated, and I am prepared to accept the conclusion in the last sentence of the leading article in The Times of 14th September, which reads:
A mandate has been stolen and the thieves are vainly protesting their innocence.
I support any effort which can be made by Her Majesty's Government to sort out the legal position in international law.
The moral issue is the one that chiefly concerns me. Apartheid is being applied in South-West Africa. Many Afrikaaner Nationalists in the Union itself are beginning to feel that the policy of apartheid will not work. The fact that the Afrikaaner Nationalists have disregarded the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report; that they have not developed the theory of Bantustan by putting money into the creation of African areas; that they have not allowed Africans to hold freehold tenure in African areas, or allowed European capital to go into Bantustan, shows that the idea of apartheid as a two-race system is not fundamentally believed in even by the South Africa Government. If it were they would have put more money into Bantustan in order to show that their policy could really work.
I am afraid that the present South African Government have no intention of modifying the system of apartheid as it exists in the Union and in South-West Africa. Not many months ago, when I was last in Cape Town, I talked to a member of the present Government. This was only about three weeks after the events at Sharpeville. He said, "Look round the country and make your own

judgment. I can tell you there is nothing wrong in this country at all. The Africans in the Union are perfectly happy. All the trouble is caused by the international Press and by a small number of Africans from Basutoland and Nyasaland who have come here to work but instead of working indulge in politics". That man really meant what he said.
Another educated Afrikaaner—a magistrate—when asked if he could tell me in what country in the world the South African policy of apartheid was supported said, "It does not matter. We were sent here to guide and lead the Bantu. God is with us and God's will will prevail." That is the terrifying thing about the whole concept of race relations that exists in the minds of the Afrikaaner Nationalist. He believes quite sincerely that he is doing right—that he is doing God's will for the benefit of himself and for the benefit of the Africans. It is therefore extremely difficult to shift him from this belief.
I do not want these stories to be construed as an attack upon the Afrikaaner people. As I am sure the House will recall, the leaders of both opposition parties in South Africa—the United Party and the Progressive Party—are led by men of Afrikaaner stock. What concerns me is the effect which the voting of the British Government alongside the South African Government in the United Nations has had upon people who oppose the Government policy in South Africa today. I have discussed this question with members of the opposition parties and they have told me that when they see Britain—perhaps for quite valid legal reasons—lining up alongside the Union of South Africa in the United Nations they feel that it strikes a blow at their efforts to change the policy of apartheid. The effect on the African people, who do not pretend to understand these legal niceties that often confuse us, is obvious.
The speech which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in Cape Town—the "wind of change" speech—did a great deal to remove the feeling which was growing in African minds that we had abandoned our interest in their future. We in Britain therefore have great responsibilities. We have tried to set a good example. In the colonial


sphere the contrast between Nigerian independence and Congolese independence is obvious to the world, and in the mandatory sphere the development of Tanganyika as compared to that of South-West Africa is also obvious to the world. We have set an example which has not been followed by the present Nationalist Government of South Africa.
That Government's policy is opening out that part of Africa to the Communists—the very thing which the Nationalists say they are trying to prevent—and this policy is a grave embarrassment to us. I hope that we shall not destroy the faith which the African people, the vast majority of English-speaking people, and a large number of Africaaner-speaking people in the Union have in us by supporting a Government whose racial policy is discredited in the eyes of the world.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Am I right in assuming from the tenor of the hon. Member's speech that he supports the Amendment and will vote for it tonight?

Mr. Wall: I certainly support the wording of the Amendment in its broad outline. There may be technical and legal difficulties about implementing it, but I fully support its main intent.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: There is a remarkable degree of unanimity in the House tonight and I would like to say, speaking for myself, how much I welcome both the speeches which we have heard from the benches opposite. I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) had to say about his recent firsthand experiences in the Union. As for the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), I would only say to her that I am not one of her constituents, but I do happen to take a great pride in being a native of the City of Plymouth; and I thought that her speech tonight, particularly the opening sentences, was in the best Plymothian tradition.
I wish to say a word or two about the legal questions, which, in my submission, necessarily arise when we are approaching this or any similar debate. I suggest to the House that there are

four juridical issues which fall to be considered relating to South-West Africa. They are these. First, can the United Nations revoke a mandate, or can a mandate be forfeited? That question was canvassed in the leading article in the Guardian this morning. The second question is whether, when South Africa becomes a republic, either inside or outside the Commonwealth, she will have forfeited her right to continue as the mandatory Power. The third question is: is it the case that, as is now alleged by the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia, the South African Government are in breach of their obligations under the mandate by reason of the policy which they have pursued in South-West Africa? The fourth question—this was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Haltemprice—is: are the South African Government in breach of their obligations under Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations?
It may well be that the third question, and possibly the first, may be decided by the International Court as a result of the initiative which has been taken by Ethiopia and Liberia. But I would like to say a word or two about the second and the fourth question. The second is: what happens when South Africa becomes a republic? This matter was touched on by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport. The mandate is expressly given to His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa.
I have ventured to raise this matter before, both in the House and outside, and in May of this year I wrote to The Times suggesting that if South Africa became a republic within the Commonwealth it was at least questionable whether she could continue to exercise a mandate on behalf of the British Crown. I went on to suggest that if South Africa were to become a republic out of the Commonwealth, the result must almost certainly be to bring her mandatory rights to an end; because it could never have been contemplated, when the mandate was first given in 1919, that it should be exercised on behalf of the British Crown by an alien Power.
Later, The Times raised the same question in a leading article on 5th September, which evoked an immediate


reaction from Mr. Eric Louw, the South African Minister of External Affairs. He said, of course, that he had been advised in a contrary sense. In particular, he referred to the speech made in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations. May I remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say on 4th July.
There is one further point that may well be under consideration during this debate; indeed, it was touched on by the right hon. Gentleman. What is the position if South Africa becomes a republic as the result of a referendum which includes South-West Africa, and wound this prejudice the status of the territory? Here, I think, there are two questions and I will give the answers to the best of my ability, because it seems important that we should try to get this clear. The first is, assuming that the mandate is recognised as still being fully effective, the status would not be affected by any change of the Constitution of South Africa. My understanding is that the international obligation entered into by a country when its monarchy is head of the State is not abrogated or in any way diminished by reason of the adoption by that country of any other form of constitution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1960; Vol. 626. c. 58–59.]
It will be observed that the right hon. Gentleman, in that speech, did not deal at all with the distinction—it may be the vital distinction—as to whether the Union, as a republic, was inside or outside the Commonwealth. I wish to ask him this, because this is a very important question: is it the view of the Commonwealth Relations Office that it makes no difference, that the mandate would be entirely unaffected even though South Africa were a republic outside the Commonwealth?
Of course, in any event, as The Times pointed out, these matters simply cannot be decided by the ipse dixit of a Government Department. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is advised by those inside his Department as to the law, but the advice that he receives is not necessarily correct, not only himself but other Ministers. There have been a good many occasions when Government Departments have proceeded on a view of the law which has afterwards turned out to be ill-founded. I am not suggesting that the Government should now immediately change their view, but I want to say this. There is only one tribunal in the world which is competent to decide this issue, and that is the International Court of Justice. We ask—I do not suppose

that we shall get an answer tonight, but we shall continue to ask—are the Government prepared to submit this issue to the International Court?
The third question which arises is whether the Union Government have been acting in breach of the terms of the mandate. That has already been covered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) and it is the specific issue which is raised by the application to the Court on behalf of Ethiopia and Liberia. I am not now going over the ground which the Court will have to consider, but I want to put one query to the Minister. These two nations, taking a certain view of their rights as original members of the League of Nations under the Covenant of the League, have made their application to the Court. A resolution came before the United Nations only a few days ago in which the member States were asked to do no mare than to take note of the application that had been made to the International Court. It was not a great deal to ask. I suppose it might be said that "taking note" involves some degree of approval, some kind of sanction as to the validity of the procedure. But it is rather remarkable. The resolution was sponsored by 20 nations. When the vote was called there was a roll-call of 73 in favour.
The Union of South Africa did not vote. Nobody voted against, but there were five abstentions—Australia, Belgium, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. I think that this House is entitled to know the grounds for that abstention, because it really is very difficult to reconcile the attitude that was taken by the United Kingdom representative, when that vote was called, with what he said during the debate.
During the debate on the various resolutions the United Kingdom representative excused himself from expressing any positive attitude because of the reference to the Court. He said, "This matter is sub judice." He said it on more than one occasion and at considerable length. He explained the procedure of the House of Commons. He said that the Fourth Committee should find some way to debar itself from considering any matter which was sub judice.


But all the resolution did was to take note of the fact that this issue was sub judice. Why, in those circumstances, did the United Kingdom representative abstain? That is something which surely we are entitled to know.
Finally, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Haltemprice, there is the most important juridical question of all, or so it seems to me. That is the obligation which rests upon South Africa, as upon all other members of the United Nations under Article 73 of the Charter, an obligation
… to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.
That is not a pious aspiration. It is not merely a form of words. It is part of the law of nations. It is the specific obligation which is accepted by every member of the United Nations. Having regard to what we all know of the application of the policies of apartheid, it is impossible to argue that that obligation is being carried out in South-West Africa by the Union Government. Here again, there is only one tribunal which can adjudicate upon this matter, and that is the International Court.
It may be that some of these questions I have raised tonight will not be covered by the application which is brought forward by Liberia and Ethiopia. Therefore, they ought to be dealt with separately. There ought to be a reference by the General Assembly of the United Nations to the Court for an advisory opinion. May we know, at any rate in general terms, what is the attitude to these juridical issues of Her Majesty's Government? Do they agree that these issues as to whether the mandate can be, has been, or in certain circumstances may be, forfeited should be decided by the International Court? If so, will they in future instruct their representatives at the United Nations to act and speak and vote accordingly?

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I have never attended the House on an occasion which has reminded me more of a vicarage tea party. Everybody seems to

be agreeing with everybody else because they have one person to pick on and attack. I am sorry to throw a little discord into the Chamber. I do not wish to involve myself in these legal complexities which I have been trying to understand but which, not being a trained lawyer, I have not been able to understand. I do not think it is necessary for the points I wish to make to try to explain the various niceties.
I dislike this Amendment. Why I could not support it and would, in fact, oppose it is that I dislike the idea of this country taking one member of the Commonwealth to pieces in the United Nations and that this House should pass an Amendment to take action in the United Nations against a member of the Commonwealth. We should consider very seriously before supporting an Amendment like this, or before long we shall find the Commonwealth split in many pieces like the party opposite.
The second point I make is in regard to the forthcoming Prime Minister's Conference. Judging by the way in which motions have been put forward and suggestions made about what should be done to South Africa at that Conference, anyone would think that it was merely being held in order to tear South Africa to bits and bring it into the dock instead of attending an open Conference. I am not prepared to discuss apartheid, whether I support it or not, because I do not think that is the issue. I do not think the issue is whether the mandate should be administered or resigned at this particular time.
The dangerous thing about this Amendment is that we, the senior member or metropolitan Dominion in the Commonwealth, are attacking a member of the Commonwealth, trying to do it in the most obvious place possible—the United Nations—and trying to make the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference into a sort of court or headmaster's study to which one of the members is called. I ask the House to think very seriously about the reaction among our friends in the Commonwealth and among other nations when they see that this House has even discussed an Amendment like this. I hope for that reason that the Amendment will not be supported.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Like the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), I was beginning to feel that this discussion was like a vicarage tea party, but it was for a very different reason from his that I was feeling uneasy. He is uneasy because he objects to this House of Commons making criticism of the apartheid policy in the Union of South Africa and contemplating some action against it in the United Nations and at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
I shall develop the point later, but it seems to me there are certain elementary human rights which go beyond the frontiers of any nation. If our Commonwealth is to stand for something worthwhile in the world, one of the human rights for which it must stand is the equality of men and women of all races within the territories which it represents. The reason why I welcome the protest of the hon. Member against the tea party atmosphere of our discussion is that I am fearful, after certain speeches which have been delivered from the opposite side of the House, that this Amendment might be accepted by the party opposite without any intention of carrying out the definite demands it makes.
I ask the Minister of State to look at the Amendment, which says:
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action in the United Nations".
I emphasise the word "action". I had today an Answer from the Lord Privy Seal to a Question which I put to him about resolutions on South Africa in the General Assembly of the United Nations. The reply was that on four out of five of those resolutions the delegate representing our Government abstained. The only resolution which the delegate supported was that, which I welcome, that the United Nations Children's Fund and the three other Agencies should operate in South-West Africa. On every other issue which voiced any criticism of the system of apartheid in South Africa, on a resolution which merely noted that the matter was to be raised at the International Court, the representative of the Government abstained.
I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman that if he intends to accept this Amend

ment it means a complete change of the Government's policy in the United Nations. It would be sheer hypocrisy for the House of Commons to adopt unanimously an Amendment which asked the Government to take action in the United Nations if the Government's delegate continued to abstain on every resolution of importance brought before the General Assembly on this subject.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further into our Amendment. It states
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government … in the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to ensure"—
I stress the word "ensure"—
that the Government of South Africa carries out the solemn obligations it undertook in accepting the Mandate for South-West Africa …
There could hardly be a decision of the House more decisive in the action which the Government's representatives should take at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference than that sentence.
If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this lead wholeheartedly, then I ask him not to come to the Dispatch Box and to say, as did the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), "We accept this in general terms. We like this amendment. We are not quite sure about the legality, but the general principles are unexceptionable and therefore we accept them." If the right hon. Gentleman intends to accept the Amendment, we shall expect him to put it into operation both at the United Nations and in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
There is no need for me to analyse again tonight—although I have all the facts—the attitude which the Government representative has taken at the United Nations, but may I say a word about the coming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? The right hon. Gentleman may be a little surprised to hear that I am not one of those who wish to expel the Government of the Union of South Africa from the Commonwealth; I believe that that is the wrong way to approach the matter. I believe that the correct approach is for the Commonwealth to declare for a whole series of principles of liberties and rights and racial equalities, and for the nations in the Commonwealth to


say, "That is our faith and our belief." When the nations of the Commonwealth have taken that decision, it is for the Government of the Union of South Africa to say whether it can remain in a Commonwealth which has that declaration as its basis.
If, at the coming meeting of the Prime Ministers, a declaration of that nature is adopted; if we say that we believe in human equalities and that a personality, whether his skin is white or black, is of equal value, whatever his race may be; if we declare for those freedoms and democracies, and challenge the Government of the Union of South Africa upon a declaration of that kind, then that Government will either have to reverse their policies entirely or leave the Commonwealth—not be expelled from it—because it will not accept the declarations of principle and liberty in which the rest of the Commonwealth believe.
Finally, I take the last sentence of the Amendment, and again I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he intends to accept the Amendment he must accept the action that it demands. It says that South Africa should either carry out the solemn obligations it undertook in accepting the mandate or surrender it
to the United Nations so that alternative trusteeship arrangements can be made".
Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to accept that? If he sincerely accepts the Amendment, we shall welcome it. Will he go to the United Nations and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and say to these two bodies, "If the Union of South Africa does not apply the mandate, which insists on social progress and economic advance, then it should be requested to surrender its mandate to the United Nations, to be applied in a different way"?
If we carry this Amendment sincerely, believing in it, and if the Government give us a pledge that they will take the action which is embodied in the Amendment, then our decision tonight will be an historic decision for this Parliament, for our Commonwealth, for Africa and for the world. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he accepts this form of words, it must not be in general, pious, vicarage tea party terms. It must be in terms which mean that he will take action to carry out its implications.

8.27 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I do not think that any hon. Member can ever accuse me of being a supporter of apartheid. I need only remind the House that I spoke in the strongest possible terms in support of a resolution moved in March or April by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) and that only last week I put down my name in support of a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). Consequently, I need not justify myself before the House in that respect.
I had not intended to speak tonight, but I feel most uneasy about the speeches which I have so far heard. I would remind the House that if we pass this Amendment the hon. Member for Eton and Slough will be quite right in saying that it cannot be done and shrugged off; it must mean something. If we pass this Amendment it will be, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said, an attempt, not to expel South Africa from the Commonwealth, but to make the position so difficult for the Union of South Africa that it will leave the Commonwealth of its own accord.
With all respect to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, that is not an attitude of mind that I can possibly respect. I can understand and respect people who say, "Let us expel the Union from the Commonwealth", but I cannot understand or respect the point of view which says, "Oh, no, I am not going to expel the Union of South Africa; I am going to make the situation so damnably unpleasant that the Union will go of its own accord." To me, that does not seem straightforward dealing.

Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that any association has the right to declare certain principles, and make those principles the test of membership? Then it must be for each nation that is in that association to decide whether it accepts the principles. My enthusiasm is for the declaration of human rights; my enthusiasm is not for the exclusion of any one nation.

Sir G. Nicholson: It is a small point, and I do not attach much importance to it. If the hon. Member for Eton and Slough prefers to have it that way he may, by all means.
I will tell the House what it means if we take steps, either directly or indirectly, to lead the Union of South Africa to leave the Commonwealth. I ask the House to recall what percentage voted in favour of a republic. That percentage may be taken, perhaps, as a rough percentage of those who support the Nationalist Government in the Union of South Africa. Speaking from memory, I think that it was 53 per cent. or 54 per cent. of the white voters. That only represents a majority of the white voters. There are no coloured or black voters.
Abount a quarter of the population of the Union of South Africa is white and so, being generous, let us say that 54 per cent. of one-quarter of the population of the Union of South Africa voted for the Union to become a republic. Fifty-four per cent. of one-quarter is about 13½ per cent. of the total population of that country. Because 13½ per cent. of the population of that country takes a certain view we are preparing steps which may lead to that country being expelled from the Commonwealth, or making conditions so unpleasant that it has to go.
I think that the Commonwealth means more than something which can be treated in that way. Everyone has his own view of what the Commonwealth means. It is like the fundamental question of what one means by one's faith in Providence. To me, it means a family. We are only primus inter pares. We are the eldest child. We are not the parents of that family. The parents of the family are our forebears in this country and elsewhere who have built up the body of tradition and achievement which has led to the existence of the Commonwealth. I believe that in doing so we have not only served ourselves and our race; we have served the world.
Never in the history of the world has mankind needed more that for which the Commonwealth stands—that blend of kindliness, liberty, decency and common sense, for which we believe the Commonwealth stands. I believe that anything that is liable to fracture and fragmentate that Commonwealth is doing the greatest possible disservice to mankind. We are children of the same family. Do all children always behave perfectly? Are there not naughty children? Are there not children whose conduct one deplores and regrets?
My father brought us up on the great principle that nothing justifies a family feud, family row, or family split. In every family there are black sheep; in every family there are sinners, Can a sinner never repent? Can a small and bare majority in the Union of South Africa never be turned into a different majority, a majority holding opposite views? Are we to risk breaking up the Commonwealth?
I may be self-satisfied and priggish when I say that I sincerely believe, as I think we all do, that in serving and preserving the Commonwealth we are serving and preserving the world. Are we to risk breaking that up because there is, momentarily, a certain majority in the Parliament of one of our children, and because, momentarily, bad ideas and bad thoughts have taken charge of that child?
Are we concerned only with the Nationalist majority in the Union of South Africa? Are we concerned only with the white population in South Africa? If we are, are we concerned only with 54 per cent. of it? What about the other 46 per cent.? Are we not concerned with the millions of Africans and coloureds in South Africa? Do they want to leave the Commonwealth? Are we serving their interests by driving South Africa from the Commonwealth?
I admit that I am a repentant sinner—in other words, I have changed my mind. A year ago I believed that we should expel South Africa from the Commonwealth. I have changed my mind fundamentally. I have reached the conclusion that to expel her from the Commonwealth, or to create such conditions as to compel her to leave the Commonwealth, would do the gravest possible disservice to those 86½ per cent. of the inhabitants of the Union that did not vote for a republic. We should also do a disservice to the rest of the world.
I sympathise with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough. I wish that it was practicable and possible for this country and the Commonwealth to lay down a creed, a set of principles, to which all members should adhere. But how many different religious faiths have run on to the rocks through narrowing the terms or principles which gave qualification for membership?
Families should not feel like that. Whatever my children or my relations may do, they are my children and my relations, whether they repent or not. I believe that it is only on that basis that a family can be kept together.

8.37 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I listened with surprise and regret to the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), for whom I have very great respect. On this occasion he wandered rather far from the Amendment and its context. After all, we are discussing the particular difficulty of South-West Africa. Anyone listening to the hon. Member's speech without having seen the Amendment would have supposed that we were having a general discussion about apartheid in the Union as a whole. The Amendment concerns the position of the mandated territory of South-West Africa.
I can appreciate the difficulty of Her Majesty's Government—it is a real difficulty—when the United Nations is asked to express an opinion upon the administration within the Union of South Africa other than the mandated territory. Many of my hon. Friend have formed the conclusion that we should take a stand at the United Nations even on that subject. However, that is not what we are discussing tonight. What we are discussing tonight is the situation as it affects the South-West Africa mandated territory, the attitude of the Union in relation to a mandate, and whether the Union is in breach of international law as regards this territory.
It appears to me, therefore, that arguments that might possibly be advanced, or that it would be reasonable to advance—whether or not one agreed with them—on the internal arrangements of the Union of South Africa, fall completely to the ground when what we are discussing is a mandated territory that is susceptible to international law and to international opinion properly expressed. So it seems to me that a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said is not relevant to this point, although it might have been to another debate.
The history of all this should convince hon. Members—as, indeed, it has, as we have heard from hon. Members opposite as well as from my hon. Friends—that

we have a peculiar duty in this matter. The hon. Member for Farnham has said that we are all members of one family and that we should treat one another as such. That is certainly true, but if a member of his family was in breach of the law would he encourage a breach of the law? Would the hon. Gentleman regard that as his duty, or would he not say, as the Romans said in their ideals of pietas and gravitas, that it was his duty as a citizen to say to that member of his family, "No. If you are in breach of the law then, much as I love you, I cannot support you. I can give you all the affection and devotion that you wish, but I cannot, consistent with my duty, support you if I believe that you are in breach of the law." It is the reverse of that, in effect, that the hon. Gentleman asks of those of us who believe that in this instance the Union of South Africa is in breach of international law—

Sir G. Nicholson: Perhaps the hon. Lady has forgotten that her hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) concluded by saying that he did not wish to expel the Union of South Africa from the Commonwealth but that he wished to lay down a set of standards that might make it impossible for the Union to stay in. I may have been led astray by that. My speech, in the main, was an endeavour to counter that.

Mrs. White: I do not think that anyone wants to expel the Union of South Africa. I certainly would not. I was not able to hear all of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), but if he said that he hoped that the Union of South Africa would adopt principles that would make it easier for her to stay in the Commonwealth with general good will, I would agree. I think that we are entirely justified on this issue of the territory of South-West Africa, in asking Her Majesty's Government to do precisely what the Amendment suggests—and I do not know whether the hon. Member for Farnham was in his place when some of his hon. Friends supported this Amendment. It asks the Government to take action in the United Nations—in other words not on every occasion to abstain when this matter is raised—and also to have consultations, which by their very nature would be private, at


the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
That seems to me to be a reasonable request to make of Her Majesty's Government. I hope very much that we are to have the pleasure of a speech from the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway). His name is subscribed to the booklet to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. Not only is the hon. Gentleman's name subscribed to it, but so is the name of another very much respected hon. Member who sits opposite but who is not in his place at the moment. There are also other names that are very well known to all of us in this House who have taken any interest in the affairs of South-West Africa—

Mr. Christopher Chataway: It has not been my intention to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I have such confidence in the Government that I feel certain that it will be pushing against an open door for me to reiterate the arguments made from this side urging that the ideas contained in this pamphlet should be the basis of Government policy.

Mrs. White: I am delighted to hear that because, if the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is correct, the Government should accept the Motion—but perhaps he has still a little work to do in persuading some of his hon. Friends.
This pamphlet makes very clear the opinion of the very distinguished group of persons sponsoring it. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Farnham has had the opportunity of reading it, but, if not, perhaps he can obtain a copy from his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North. I will simply read the conclusions printed in heavy type on the last page. It is said:
Britain has a special responsibility.
Indeed, yes, because the mandate, let us not forget, was in fact entrusted to His Britannic Majesty's Government, and it was devolved on the Union of South Africa. But this document says that we have a special responsibility.
It then goes on to make three firm recommendations that Britain should—
Declare her general intention of assisting the international community to establish international rights in South-West Africa, and make it clear that she will not support South Africa at the United Nations.

Further, that Britain should—
Immediately declare her intention of supporting any decision of the International Court which it might be asked to give on the issue of South-West Africa.
That is categorical, is it not? It goes on, thirdly, and very properly, to say that Britain should—
Make herself available for negotiations with South Africa through the Commonwealth, or other informal channels.
In other words, what we are suggesting, at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference.
Therefore, we have on the record three clear recommendations from a body of persons of experience, some of them of very great experience indeed, in African affairs, including, I repeat, two hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House, and other supporters of the Government outside this Chamber.
We are not asking for more than these recommendations suggest, and, therefore, I hope very much that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North, is right in thinking that the Government are to accept the Amendment which we have put upon the Order Paper. After all, those of us who have taken an interest in this sad territory feel that humanity at large owes something to the people of South-West Africa. There is no part of Africa that has a more deplorable history at the hands of Europeans than South-West Africa. There is no part of the country that has been treated more abominably under the German occupation, and the stories of that time are more hair-raising than those from any other part of the whole continent of Africa, in regard to the way in which the people of South-West Africa were treated.
Having, as they believed, freed themselves from that appalling, cruel and bestial tyranny, the people of that territory thought that they would be under the direct protection of His Britannic Majesty, at that time King George V. They found gradually that that was not the case, and that they had been placed under the power of the Union of South Africa, which has so ordered things in its disregard of international obligations that it has been impossible for the people of that country to make representations themselves directly to the United Nations or any other body.
I will not weary the House by referring to the history, which is well known, I am sure, to all of us, but I think that what we are asking for in the Amendment should be acceptable to anyone who has studied the position in the territory.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I am reminded tonight of the debate that we had on 8th April last, when the House unanimously came to the conclusion that the only way in which peace and tranquillity could be achieved in South Africa was by establishing complete equality between all peoples in that country.
The tenor of the speeches from the other side of the House tonight indicates that the winds of change have been blowing very strongly in the Conservative Party, and, quite frankly, I welcome this change in opinion on that side of the House. I congratulate, particularly, the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) and his hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) and Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on the part that they have played in bringing about a change of outlook in the Conservative Party on this question.
The Times has referred to the "theft of a mandate" when speaking of the territory we are discussing. I refer also to the rape of a country. Not only have the people of South-West Africa been denied their political rights, but they have had stolen from them the economic assets of their territory under the policy of apartheid and the policy of allocating the wealth of the country very largely to the European minority of about 69,000 people out of a total population of just over 500,000.
I will give some examples to show how the policy of apartheid works in South-West Africa. Last year, in Windhoek, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, riots took place which were almost completely disregarded by the Press. These riots came about as a result of the Government's policy of removing from Windhoek the African location and putting it some way out of town in an area which has became known officially as Katutura—which, ironically enough, is Herero for "We

have no permanent home". The authorities did not realise, when they endorsed the use of that name, exactly what they were endorsing. The Herero people, one of the tribes in the territory, do not accept the policy of apartheid and object in every possible way to their forcible removal to the new locations which were established for them.
I ask the House to consider the human misery created as a result of the transfers. First, there is the extra expense involved for families moved from their homes where the average rent was about 3s. 6d. a month to houses where the rent was £2 a month. That has to be borne out of an income which, on average, is only £10 a month, a very big burden indeed when there is added to it the cost of transport, about 6d., from the new location to the town where the people have to work. Also, one must remember that it has been estimated that the basic income needed to maintain a subsistence standard in the area around Windhoek is about £27 a month.
These African people are being denied the opportunity of obtaining an income to keep themselves and their families alive. Yet the territory is not the poorest of the continent. For instance, it is much wealthier than Tanganyika, the mandated territory for which we are responsible. The average yearly income per head of population in Tanganyika is £20 a year. In South-West Africa, the value of exports alone is about £45 million a year, which works out at an average of about £80 per head, man, woman and child. But the African people do not share this relative prosperity, because the main value of the economy of South-West Africa goes to the European minority living there and to the European companies investing there. The African people are regarded as cheap labour by the European settlers and by the European companies exploiting them.
One of the reasons why we press this Amendment tonight is our hope that, if the mandate can be taken away from the Union of South Africa and given to another Power, it will be possible to initiate policies in the territory which will give the African people a fairer share in the wealth which is being created. The whole policy of the South


African authorities is to limit the extent to which the African people can participate in the economic activities of the territory.
I should like to refer to the Report of the United Nations Committee on South-West Africa, dated 3rd September last. Paragraphs 253 and 254 show only too clearly how the African people are discriminated against in the economic sphere. The Europeans are given the benefit of credits, of facilities in marketing arrangements, in the allocation of land and in educational facilities. In all these spheres the Europeans are given the advantage whereas the Africans are given hardly any facilities.
In paragraphs 256 and 257 reference is made to the help given to the territory during the drought last year, when about £2,600,000 were provided for alleviating the distress caused by the drought. Yet most of that money went to the European minority. A small part of it, measured in tens of thousands of pounds, went to the African population in the form of subsidies for mealie meal and other such help.
No genuine assistance is given to the African population to build up their incomes. They are left to scratch an existence on their overcrowded native reserves, or forced to find employment with the European companies or mines, or on European farms, where their wages are deplorably low. The allocation of land is one example. Most of the cattle in the territory are owned by Europeans. The Africans have only a small part of the total head of cattle in the territory.
The situation in the territory after the riots last December was full of tension and fear, but, strangely enough, it was not between the local white population and the overwhelming African population. It was between the African population and the administering authority. There is a remarkable quotation in the Report to which I have referred from a speech made by the local Member of Parliament, Mr. Basson, who is a former member of the Nationalist Party. He was a supporter of apartheid, but now takes an attitude which is far more objective than that of his former associates in the Nationalist Party. This is what he said in a speech in the South African Parliament on 9th March last:

The question I should now like to put to the Government is not whether it has taken sufficient security measures to protect the public against any further outbursts. The fact of the matter is—and I should like to emphasise this—that the public itself was never threatened. The best possible relationship exists between the natives and the public. The resistance was directed at the authorities. It is, therefore, not a question of public safety which is causing us concern, but what the Government intends doing to penetrate to the crux of the difficulties and to resolve them. I think that it is generally accepted that it is the task of any good government not only to punish and to suppress disorders, but also to create conditions which will prevent such disorders. We want general peace and order to be restored in South West. We do not want tanks and machine-guns, with which one can, after all, not solve anything, to become a permanent part of the life of South West.
The South African Government are not responding to that appeal. They are building up their military might in this territory. They are flying against the united voice of the rest of the world, with the exception of countries like Portugal, whose actions in Mozambique and Angola do not bear examination. They are building their military might in these territories with the intention of still further suppressing the African people of that mandated territory.
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Farnham, but he must realise that the situation is becoming so desperate that it is a question of choosing between action Like expelling South Africa from the Commonwealth and imposing economic sanctions in an attempt to bring the Government of that territory to their senses or inviting civil war in that country, with the possibility of having an Algerian situation with, perhaps, China or Russia bringing in military aid from outside to build up a rebellious force. We do not want that.

Sir G. Nicholson: I do not wish to argue with the hon. Member. I am sure that he would agree that our intention is the same, but that we differ over methods.

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. But we must avoid war at all costs. We do not want civil war in the territory. It would do no good at all. We do not want the races to be involved in the sort of conflict that is now the suffering of Algeria, bleeding France to death. We do not


want South Africa to become a battlefield in the cold war. We do not want East and West pouring in aid to build up the military forces on both sides.
The sort of measures which we propose—bringing the United Nations into the picture, making South Africa account for herself and then, if she fails to do so, taking positive action to bring her to her senses—are better than allowing the situation gradually to get worse and inviting the other countries to come in and stir things up.
What Mr. Basson said deserves our consideration. He was a member of the Nationalist Party and is the Member of Parliament for Windhoek. He does not represent the Africans for they had no part in his election. He was elected by the Europeans but the Government of South Africa, however, are not responding to his request.
It is in these circumstances that the British Government are called upon to take positive action. We want them to do something now in the United Nations which they have never done before. We want them to take positive action there and also to support the case which Liberia and Ethiopia are taking to the International Court.
Before I conclude, I wish to ask the Minister of State to clarify one aspect of the problem which is of great concern to the people of Bechuanaland. I was there in September. They feel strongly about this whole question. They are watching carefully what is happening in the mandated territory. They are watching carefully what Britain is doing in relation to the problem, because they are worried about their own future, particularly when South Africa becomes a republic and they find that their own status is called into question and there is the increasing danger that South Africa will take steps to absorb Bechuanaland and the other Protectorates in the same way as South-West Africa has been absorbed.
The question concerning the people of Bechuanaland is the use of military facilities in their Protectorate to enable the South African authorities to move forces across the Protectorate into the mandated territory. According to the South African Minister of Defence, there is now a route through the southern part

of Bechuanaland which is regarded as the opening to the South-West African territory for the use of the military. It is quoted in the Report to which I have referred and it is a matter of considerable concern. I ask the Minister of State to make clear that there is no question whatever of Her Majesty's Government allowing the Union of South Africa to have military facilities in the Bechuanaland Protectorate or access through that Protectorate for her military forces.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I think there has been broad agreement in the House that the intolerable position in South-West Africa should be brought to an end. The Amendment is couched in moderate but definite terms. I therefore urge the Government to give most serious consideration to the request that is being made from this side of the House. There is considerable feeling in the country both about the position in South-West Africa and the policy which the Union of South Africa has been pursuing in that territory, as well as the attitude of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations when the question is brought under review year by year.
It is not only in our own country that that feeling is apparent. There is also in the Continent of Africa itself, in various parts of the Commonwealth and indeed throughout the world, judging from the voting at the United Nations, a very deep feeling about the way in which the mandate is administered by the Union of South Africa.
Perhaps I may be forgiven if I make a personal reference on this problem, because I was one of the Ministers responsible for bringing the old mandate system to an end and inaugurating the trusteeship system. We were concerned with creating a trusteeship system which profited from the experience of the working of the mandates. When the mandate system was inaugurated it was generally felt that no victorious nation should claim any territories which had passed into its possession as a result of conquest. There was a feeling, as expressed in the mandates, that everything possible should be done to promote the moral wellbeing and the social progress of the people brought under any such system. The administration was to be conducted as a sacred trust of civilisation
At the time it was thought that this system owed a great deal to the Prime Minister of South Africa, General Smuts, but South Africa was perfectly within her rights technically, though I do not say within her moral right, in determining that she would not pursue the mandate status so far as it affected South-West Africa. She could make a choice when we introduced the trusteeship system. I discussed the matter with General Smuts. Being a responsible Minister, trying to bring the trusteeship system into operation, I felt that it was most desirable that all the mandated territories should come into the trusteeship system. General Smuts, although he was the author of the mandate system, thought otherwise.
I said that, in the circumstances, perhaps he would make it clear to the world that if he could not accept the trusteeship system at least he would see that the territory of South-West Africa was administered in the spirit of the mandate, that it should continue a sacred trust of civilisation, and that the avowed purpose set out in the mandate should continue to be pursued. General Smuts agreed and made a public declaration to that effect. It is as well that that history should go on the record.
What has really happened? Those pledges have been largely forgotten. Indeed, they have been brushed aside by the administering authority, the Union of South Africa, and instead, steadily over the years the Union has de facto annexed South-West Africa and made it for all practical purposes a fifth province. The political arrangements of South-West Africa are now integrated into the Union and it is a province administered by the central Government of the Union and no longer as a mandated territory.
In South-West Africa there is being pursued a policy which is quite contrary to the whole spirit of the mandate. Apartheid is the general term for the policy which is in operation. There is the fiercest discrimination between black and white. There is a segregation of the black man from European living. No political rights are permitted to the African for his participation in the common life of the country in which he lives. A great deal of his land has been alienated.
In all the circumstances, the United Nations is perfectly right in the declarations which it has made from time to time, that the spirit of the mandate is being evaded in the administration of this territory. Above all, the Union has refused to participate in negotiations which have been offered by the United Nations and has set on one side the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that the territory was still subject to international supervision and that, as the administering authority, the Union of South Africa should continue to make its reports to the United Nations and that the international status of the Territory could not be modified by the unilateral action of South Africa itself.
The United Nations Report of 1957 went so far as to say:
The existing conditions in the Territory and the trend of the administration represent a situation contrary to the Mandate system, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, and the resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
It went on to say:
There is no evidence that the Mandatory Power intends to change the course of the administration of the Territory or to bring it into conformity with the Mandates system.
That is a damning indictment of the administration by the Union of this territory.
We are therefore entitled to ask the Government to pursue a somewhat different attitude from the one they have pursued at the United Nations during discussions on this territory. My hon. Friends have referred to the decisions which have been taken by the United Kingdom delegate, the abstentions on certain resolutions, and the general support which from time to time has been given to the case made by the Union of South Africa.
I do not want to go over that ground, but if this matter is being reconsidered in the light of the representations that are being made, and in the light of the reference to the International Court of Justice, may I remind the Minister of State of the views of the people of the territory, as recently presented at the United Nations. There is a grave fear


that reference of this matter to the International Court will again delay any definite action in respect of the territory.
It has been suggested that the General Assembly should be invited to suspend its supervisory functions and that petitioners should cease to petition because the International Court has been seized of the matter. To leave the South African Government free to continue its unrestrained oppression and misrule would be to make a mockery of the United Nations and of those rights which the judgment of the International Court is being asked to vindicate.
The representatives of the African people have informed the United Nations that they do not want action in regard to the conditions at present operating in the territory to be delayed simply because the matter is going before the International Court.
If we follow the policy pursued so far by Her Majesty's Government it will add little to the reputation which this country has acquired in recent years in colonial administration. The present policy tends to smear our reputation in some of our dependencies and in the under-developed areas. It causes confusion in the minds of Africans who have been watching the situation carefully and who feel deeply about the policies that are being pursued by the Union Government in this Territory as well as in the Union. It also causes confusion amongst other nations. World opinion has been expressing itself with complete solidarity. Why cannot Britain do the same? The British Government should give a definite lead. Why should Britain run away from what she often regards as her rôle, that of giving moral leadership to the world?
I urge the Government to review the instructions they have given to their representatives at the United Nations. There are alternative ways of handling this problem. I am not competent to go into the legal intricacies, but surely we put ourselves at a grave disadvantage if, when a vital issue of this kind is before the United Nations, we abstain from voting or give what appears to be moral backing to the Union of South Africa.
If it is argued that we are obliged to do that because the Union is at least a

free nation inside the Commonwealth, I would ask the Government to respect the views of the other Commonwealth nations, such as Ghana, Malaya and Nigeria, all of whom feel equally strongly that South Africa is pursuing a particularly wicked and vile course in this territory. I therefore urge the Government to follow up the resolution passed a few days ago, from which the United Kingdom abstained but which was agreed to by the great body of the Fourth Committee at the United Nations, that an end should be brought to the present policy operating in the territory, which can be referred to by the comprehensive term of "apartheid." At the same time it was agreed that an investigating commission should go to South-West Africa in order that a beginning could be made by the United Nations to form the basis for a constructive policy for that territory.
Unfortunately, I gather that the United Kingdom representative again abstained from those proposals. I urge that at least the United Kingdom should show some initiative in the Committee and should strive to adopt a constructive line of action. It has been suggested that without even waiting for the verdict or the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice we should urge the United Nations to bring into operation in this territory the remedial work which can be done by the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations in respect of health and social conditions, and the entire social policy which is now generally adopted, and also, since the mandate is held in the name of the Sovereign, we should propose that a Commonwealth administration should take the place of the South African one.
I urge the Government to accept the Amendment and thereby agree that the intolerable situation in South-West Africa should be brought to an end, so far as it is within our power to influence this development, and that we should take a constructive line in the United Nations in order to do something to redeem the present dreadful position of the inhabitants.

9.23 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): It is always a pleasure to speak after


the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), because we know that he has followed this problem very closely and personally. I hope to be able to reply to some of the points he raised, but I want, first, to comment upon his reference to voting on the resolutions put forward in the United Nations. This comment applies not only to his speech, but to the speeches of other hon. Members opposite. They asked why we opposed one aspect of these resolutions without taking the whole of the resolutions into consideration. The fact is that whatever may have been the various characteristics of the resolutions put to us, there were certain parts of them—and they were all long ones—which we found it impossible to support.
The remarkable thing about the debate has been the way in which, except for the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot)—to whom I offer my sympathies at his recent loss, since he is a neighbour of mine—and the lawyers amongst us, everybody seems to have fought shy of the legal implications of this problem. Yet I doubt very much whether it is possible for the whole of the attitude of the United Kingdom Government, or, indeed, the problems of South-West Africa, to be understood unless there is some conception of the legal complexity of the matter.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that whatever the law—I think that I am quoting him correctly, I hope so—it is the spirit of the mandate that matters. Of course, the spirit of the mandate is extremely important; nobody denies that for a moment. But in a situation such as this, where the legal position is so much at issue, I do not think that anyone can ignore the legal aspects of the problem.
I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) whether we supported the initiative of Liberia and Ethiopia in the reference to the International Court. Perhaps I may quote to him what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers), who was our delegate at the Fourth Committee. In the speech that he made there he said:
On the other hand, when the Governments of Liberia and Ethiopia filed proceedings before the Court, this seemed to us to be a practical

and constructive step, which could further clarify the legal position and which could establish another point of certainty in a confused situation.
There has never been any doubt about our attitude to that, although we realise, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman realises, that it will be very difficult from the point of view of the Court submission. It is a difficult proposition.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what attitude we would take to the views of the International Court when they were announced. I think that the attitude we would take would be similar to the attitude of the Labour Government of 1950 when, it will be remembered that the decision of that Government—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was the delegate on that occasion—with regard to the advisory opinion given by the International Court with respect to South-West Africa was given to the Trusteeship Council after the opinion had been studied by Her Majesty's Government. I should think that any hon. Member would regard that as being a reasonable and responsible approach to that matter.
I have said—I do so with great temerity—that I should like to look at some of the legal aspects of the problem. I do not underestimate in any way the importance of the spirit of the mandate, the spirit of the carrying out of international obligations by those who have undertaken them. But, as I have already emphasised, I do not think that we can ignore the legal relationship.
The basis of our interpretation of the legal position is the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, given in 1950. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that he would be able to make my speech for me, and I have no doubt that he would do so with great success. But, were he standing at this Dispatch Box, I think that he would be saying very much the same sort of thing as I am saying, and that he would be carrying forward the decision made by the Government of the day with regard to the acceptance of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.
Let us consider what that advisory opinion was, or rather, what are the deductions which we can make from it. They are these: firstly, that the mandate is still in force; secondly, that the Union


Government continue to be subject to the obligations imposed on the mandatory Power by the mandate and that the supervisory role has passed from the defunct League of Nations to the United Nations; thirdly, that such powers of supervision should not exceed in extent the supervision practiced under the mandate system; fourthly, that the Union is not under any legal obligation to place the Territory under the trusteeship system of the United Nations.
The hon. and learned Member asked me why it was that, despite the fact that all other countries had handed over their mandates to the United Nations, to receive them again on a trusteeship basis, the Union of South Africa had not done so in respect of South-West Africa. It is perfectly true that they have not followed the practice we followed in this country, but it was the opinion of the International Court, in 1959, that they were not under an obligation to do so.
The fifth deduction is that the competence to determine and modify the international status of the territory rests with the Union Government acting with the consent of the United Nations. That may not be a full answer in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, but I think that it is the answer as we understand the legal position to be in regard to any question of the determination or modification of the international status of South-West Africa at present. That being our view of the legal position, we have in the past, inevitably—

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the United Nations does not have the legal authority to initiate changes in the mandatory arrangements in South-West Africa?

Mr. Alport: What I am doing is making a deduction from the opinion given by the International Court of Justice—the highest legal court—which, as far as I am aware, is the best legal opinion on the subject. This being our view of the legal position of South-West Africa, we did, in the past, have some reservations with regard to the legality of the South-West Africa Committee, set up under the United Nations General Assembly, which has interpreted its functions in certain directions to extend

its supervisory function beyond the precedents set by the League's Mandates Commission when it was in existence.
I think it right at this point to establish this view of ours since it has a direct bearing upon our decision in regard to a vote in the current session of the Assembly on certain of the resolutions relating to South-West Africa which, as hon. Members know, have just been debated in the Fourth Committee. Perhaps, here, I might also refer to two other legal matters which, the House may recollect, I referred to in my speech on 4th July. I will summarise the view that I expressed then. I fully accept from the hon. and learned Member that it may not be the last word, but it is the best information available to me at the moment. We do not accept the suggestion that references in the wording of the mandate to "His Britannic Majesty" qualifies in any way the fact that the mandate was entrusted to the Government of the Union of South Africa.
As I said on that occasion, the use of the words "His Britannic Majesty" is a formally correct way of saying that the mandate was given to the Union Government—given to the Union Government as a fully independent member of the British Empire and Commonwealth. It is in our view a misunderstanding, both of Commonwealth and United Kingdom constitutional practice, to deduce from the use of these particular words the idea that any special rights or responsibilities in respect of South-West Africa were conferred upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, or, indeed, on the Governments of any other part of the independent Commonwealth. The fact is that our legal position in relation to South-West Africa in no way differs from that of any other member of the United Nations which was also a former member of the League of Nations.
Secondly, and here I come to a point made by the hon. and learned Member, by the same token there are no grounds, in our view, for the opinion that a change of the status of the Union of South Africa from a monarchy to a republic in any way changes the legal position or obligations of South Africa as a mandatory Power responsible for the administration of that territory.
The hon. and learned Member asked whether there would be any change if,


in fact, South Africa were no longer a member of the Commonwealth, but were a republic outside the Commonwealth. I should like to think further about that, but my immediate impression is that it will not affect the situation in the least.

Mr. D. Foot: I thank the right hon. Member for the sympathy which he expressed a few moments ago. Does he not agree that the only ultimate arbitrator on this question must be the International Court?

Mr. Alport: It may well be that that will provide a different opinion from our own, but at the moment what I have stated is clearly the situation.
It is also important to bear in mind that however strong the feelings may be on one side or the other, nothing can be gained by not being fair. It is worth reminding the House that the terms of the mandate conferred upon the Union Government full power of administration and legislation for the territory of South-West Africa as an integral part of the Union of South Africa, with the right to apply the laws of the Union to that territory. That is our view of the general legal position.
Let me say a ward about United Kingdom policy over the past few years. It has always been our view that any practical solution which would serve the interests of the inhabitants of South-West Africa could be brought about only by the Union Government, as a mandatory power, and the United Nations, in its supervisory capacity, working out by mutual agreement arrangements which would enable both to carry out their respective rôles in co-operation and harmony. Our policy at successive sessions of the United Nations General Assembly has been to encourage negotiations towards this end and to bring about a climate in which such negotiations could make progress.
Indeed, the culmination of our efforts in this direction was the part played between 1957 and 1959 by Sir Charles Arden-Clarke as the United Kingdom Member and Chairman of the Good Offices Committee. I do not know whether many hon. Members have had an opportunity to study the reports of the proceedings of this Committee, but if anyone has, he will, I am sure, be

quite clear that every possible effort was made in the existing circumstances to find a way of approaching a solution to the problem through the Good Offices Committee.
I turn to the most recent proceedings which have led to the reference to the International Court. It was a very great regret to us that the Good Offices Committee, which seemed to be making substantial progress at one time, did not succeed in finding a solution. As a result of that lack of progress, it has been decided by Liberia and Ethiopia to initiate proceedings against South Africa in the International Court of Justice.
I will summarise the scope of the application which has been made. They charge the Union with numerous violations of the mandate, including failure to promote the material and moral wellbeing and social progress of the inhabitants; practising racial discrimination, suppressing rights and liberties; refusing to transmit petitions to the United Nations; and failing to submit annual reports. The application asks the Court to declare that South Africa has a duty to remedy these violations and to make the necessary orders to effectuate these determinations.
The House will appreciate that with the filing of this application a new situation has been brought into being. The South African representative at the Trusteeship Committee moved that the whole problem in all its aspects should now be considered as sub judice and that, therefore, it would be improper for the Committee to discuss it. This point was made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield.
It has been our view that, while the sub judice principle applies, it should not be interpreted as excluding all forms of consideration and thus placing in suspense the supervisory functions for the whole duration of the Court proceedings, but that it would be lacking in respect to the Court, and might prejudice the Court proceedings, if the Assembly were to pronounce substantively on the matters contained within the application while the Court was considering that application and had it before it.
For this reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, our representative, appealed to the Committee to exercise restraint in dealing with this matter. It should be noted by the House that this appeal was fairly widely supported by other members of the Committee.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Have the South African Government stated that they will accept the jurisdiction and decision of the International Court of Justice with regard to the submissions of Liberia and Ethiopia?

Mr. Alport: I am sorry; I am not able to tell the hon. and learned Member what will be the eventual decision of the South African Government upon that. Nor am I responsible for that decision.
I turn now to the explanation of the votes. The House is probably already familiar with the general pattern of the resolutions passed by the Committee to date. There are, first, three resolutions dealing with petitions, freedom of political organisation, and disturbances in connection with the projected move of the Windhoek location, which were put forward as annexures to the Report of the South-West Africa Committee.
I have already mentioned our misgivings regarding the proceedings of this body, but these were coupled with the difficulties in our view, of pronouncing a judgment on matters pending before the Court at the particular time the debate took place. This led us to abstain from voting. The same consideration has led us to abstain upon the vote on the resolution which invited the Committee on South-West Africa to go to the territory immediately with a view to reporting to the Assembly on the conditions for restoring a climate for peace and security and the steps which would enable indigenous inhabitants to achieve a wide measure of internal self-government designed to lead them to complete independence as soon as possible.
In the case of the resolution commending the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia on their initiative in submitting their dispute to the International Court of Justice, the reasons for our abstention were not, as I explained to the House, that we opposed their intiative, but be

cause the resolution as drafted pronounced that the Government of the Union had failed and refused to carry out its obligations, which was precisely the ground on which the reference to the International Court of Justice was made. Further, we were unable to accept that part of the resolution—its conclusion—to the effect that the dispute could not be settled by negotiation. It is certainly not the view of the Government that, however long may have been the delays, and however grave the disappointments in the handling of this matter, a settlement by negotiation is no longer a practical proposition.
More than one hon. Member has referred to the fact that we voted in favour of the resolution proposed by India and Ghana calling upon Specialised Agencies of the United Nations to undertake urgent programmes to assist the indigenous inhabitants and upon the Union to seek such assistance. In doing so, as I am sure will be the wish of the House, our representative referred to our appreciation of the work which had been done by the United Nations Specialised Agencies elsewhere, experience of which we have had in many of our own dependent territories.
During the prolonged controversy over the problem of South-Went Africa it has been the aim of the Government to find means of enabling the United Nations, on the one hand, and the Union of South Africa, on the other, to reach an agreement which will resolve the differences between the two. Mr. Hammarskjoeld is expected to visit South Africa in January and I hope that he will take any opportunity which arises during his visit, and which is likely to help in this difficult matter.
It will certainly be the strong desire of Her Majesty's Government to help by any action they can take to bring about a resumption of the negotiations. Indeed, whatever may be the outcome of Mr. Hammarskjoeld's visit, the Government intend to continue their efforts, which have so far been far more practical than any of the alternatives proposed, although we cannot ignore the fact that the situation with regard to South-West Africa has been altered by it becoming sub judice as a result of the reference to the International Court of Justice.
Turning to the Amendment, the filing of the suit at the International Court has created a new situation. I am surprised that the Amendment does not in any way give recognition to this. After all, the application to the Court follows mature consideration in the United Nations over the years of the possibilities of legal action. It is, therefore strange that, in framing the Amendment, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should not have made any reference to a suit which has at last been launched, when the practical outcome of it still remains to be seen and may provide, along the lines of legal action, some guidance and help in the solution of the problem.

Mr. Callaghan: The reason is very simple. I have not been able to get access to the submissions which Ethiopia and Liberia will make to the International Court. I do not know whether they are even known in this country. Perhaps the Minister of State knows. None of the rest of us knows. If he knows what the exact submission is, I shall be glad to hear it. It would have been very unwise of me to have made reference to it when I did not know what those countries were submitting.

Mr. Alport: This is a very serious matter, as I think the hon. Gentleman fully realises. It should have been possible for the hon. Gentleman to have acquainted himself, not with the details, but at any rate with the general framing of the contention of the sponsors.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. Gentleman know them?

Mr. Alport: I have already outlined the general basis of them to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can fail to get them. The information would have been easily available to him if he had wished to get it.
The second thing about the Amendment is the alternative at the end of it, of the surrender of the mandate and its assignment elsewhere. I have already dealt with that. I have said that, as far as we understand the legal position, it is as contained in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court, 1950. That is something which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite could have considered in framing the Amendment.
I cannot tell the House, for reasons which hon. Members fully recognise, what will be the subjects which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers will discuss at their meeting in March. I must, however, make one thing clear, namely, the limitations upon the United Kingdom's action in this matter, which are placed on it either in its capacity as a member of the United Nations or of the Commonwealth. There can be no question of the United Kingdom being able to ensure unilaterally a solution to the problem of South-West Africa. Therefore, in that sense the Amendment does not relate to the realities of the situation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: So you are against the Amendment.

Mr. Alport: In so far as it lies within the capacity, the ingenuity and the statesmanship of the United Kingdom to play a constructive part in bringing about a satisfactory outcome of the South-West Africa problem, both as a member of the United Nations and as a member of the Commonwealth, it is certainly our intention to do so. Indeed, we believe that in that way we shall be able to play our part in providing, we hope, a realistic approach to the solution of the problem.
I noticed that in their speeches, the hon. Members for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and for Cardiff, South-East asked for action. I will read the former's speech tomorrow, but in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I did not hear any suggestion whatever of what sort of action he thought would be effective in achieving—unilaterally, by the United Kingdom—the objective that he has in mind. I am certain that had the hon. Gentleman, following the decisions of the Labour Government in 1950, been answering this debate, and wrestling with this difficult problem, as we have to do, he would have been basing his approach to it on precisely the same ground as we are now doing.
Despite the faulty wording of the Amendment, and its failure to pay proper regard to the realities of the problem, I recognise that the House is anxious about the continuing failure to find a practical solution to the problem—

Mr. Callaghan: Why not be honest, and vote against the Amendment?

Mr. Alport: If I may say so, I am being much more honest than the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues, who are urging action without suggesting what can be done to obtain a successful conclusion. But they do not face the realities, as the Government must face them in the United Nations and in Africa, of the problems that lie ahead.
I am sure that the views expressed by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite will be helpful to advancing consideration and study of the subject. I realise the general anxieties relating to the subject and, because of that, and in the light of the considerations that I have outlined, I do not propose to vote against the Amendment. It will continue to be the aim of the Government, in whatever action—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask for your guidance, in view of the extraordinary statement that the Minister of State has just made. He has given us, in the most explicit terms, his view—

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Silverman: I must make myself clear—I do not want to take a long time.
The right hon. Gentleman explained in the most explicit terms why he regards the Amendment as unacceptable, and has then gone on to say that, nevertheless, he does not propose to vote against it. Is not that an abuse of the procedure of the House, so as to prevent the true issue from being decided?

Mr. Speaker: If that were right, there might be a point, but listening, as I did, to the Minister, I understood him to be saying, not that the Amendment was unacceptable, but subject to criticism from his point of view. Indeed, he stated that he intended to accept it, which, in effect, is the opposite of saying that it is unacceptable.

Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I understood the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure most of us did, to say that one could not ensure what

the Amendment asks him to ensure, that one could not take action in the sense that the Amendment asks him to take action. He is, therefore, against the Amendment, which he has announced his intention of not opposing. Surely that must be an abuse.

Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to enter into an analysis of speeches. I shall be guided by the voice and the vote. Contradiction in that might represent abuse.

Mr. Alport: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough should take such exception to the acceptance of the Amendment. I am sorry that in dealing with a serious and important subject like this, an Amendment that was presumably intended to rally the interest and support of the House should be drafted in the way that it has been drafted—HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In these circum-stances, as I have said, I do not intend to vote against the Amendment. It is the intention of the Government to take whatever action we possibly can which can be calculated to bring about a peaceful and equitable solution of what has up to now proved to be such an intractable problem.

Mr. Stonehouse: Before the Minister resumes his seat, would he reply to the specific point which I raised in my speech? Has he not taken action to deny military facilities to the South African authorities through the Bechuanaland Protectorate? Will he take this opportunity of saying that these facilities will be denied?

Mr. Alport: I can quite easily give an assurance that such facilities as exist through the southern part of Bechuanaland are of no concern or threat whatever to the integrity of that territory.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

Mr. Callaghan: If I finish before ten o'clock, I believe that I shall be in order in speaking on this amended Motion.
This is a most extraordinary situation. For the first time for twenty or thirty years, I suppose, an Amendment has been accepted by the Government, but


the terms in which the Minister accepted it must be distasteful to many of his own followers, as well as to those of us on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has done exactly what our representative did in the United Nations. He has been willing to wound yet afraid to strike. The timorous and bloodless approach which characterised our representative in the United Nations has characterised the right hon. Gentleman's speech here tonight. We believe that he will do exactly the same with this as the Government did with our Motion on the Press. If the Minister intended to accept the Amendment I wish that he could have done it in more gracious terms than those in which he did accept it.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action in the United Nations and in the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to ensure that the Government of South Africa carries out the solemn obligations it undertook in accepting the Mandate for South-West Africa, or surrenders it to the United Nations so that alternative trusteeship arrangements can be made.

Committee Tomorrow.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas, Mr. Leavey, Mr. John Morris, and Mr. Wise nominated Members of the Select Committee.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

AIRPORTS (CATERING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

9.58 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The subject I want to discuss this evening will not be as controversial as that which has gone before. It is the question of catering at British airports. I am taking the view that catering at British airports is unsatisfactory, and I am asking my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation to take note of that I have no doubt that he will not be too ready to accept my view, but, as I see it, Ministers seldom admit complaints. They follow the rules which are laid down by insurance companies for their insured—"Never admit anything". I think that if he looks at the situation in respect of catering at British airports, he will see some cause for quite serious complaint.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Mr. Shepherd: I do not for a moment imagine that catering at airports is an easy business. I have been involved in catering myself, and I know very well that it is not the easiest of occupations to follow. I realise that there are special difficulties attached to catering at airports, difficulties caused, for instance, by the isolated position of the airport, very often, by the irregularity of hours, by the fact that the customers either want serving in a great hurry or they want to stay half the night. None of these conditions is really ideal for the caterer. Nevertheless, I believe that better standards can and should obtain today at British airports. It is Ministerial policy never to admit anything, but I hope that my hon. Friend will try to do something about the standards which now exist because they are, I believe, damaging to the prestige of this country.
I wish to make clear, also, that I do not criticise B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. I believe that those who, like myself, do a fair amount of travelling by air have


come to the conclusion that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. cater on their aircraft as well as, if not better than, any other airline in the world. I am annoyed sometimes when I find that B.E.A. has not the reputation that attaches to Air France because, without being unkind to Air France, I have found from my personal experience that B.E.A. can beat Air France almost all the time. I do not, therefore, criticise the standards of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. because, in my view, they have done a great deal in establishing our prestige by the way that they cater for the public with food in the cabin.
Neither do I make criticisms of catering in general in this country. I think that we have raised our standards very considerably during the past ten or twelve years. It is to me regrettable that we have not in airport catering raised our standards but we have, in fact, lowered them during the past ten years.
I regard airport catering today as being in something like the position occupied by railway catering twenty years ago. We all remember the refreshment rooms of twenty years ago—the stale bun and the tired sandwich languishing rather unappetisingly in their glass domes. It is very satisfying to realise that in the intervening years there has been a substantial improvement in the standard of railway catering. Airport catering now stands where railway catering was twenty years ago.
This is a serious misfortune because, after all, our international prestige is to some extent affected by the standards we maintain at our airports. Why has the standard of catering at airports gone down? Perhaps my hon. Friend would like me to instance some of the places where it has in fact gone down. Several hon. Members have come to me during the past week and each has said, "We have got the worst catering in the whole country at our local airport". Of course, they cannot all be right, but it is evidence that several hon. Members believe that the standard of catering at British airports is low.
Two instances will show how standards of catering have deteriorated. Let us take the view held by the eating public of conditions at Northolt a few years ago

and the view now held of conditions at London Airport. When B.E.A. did the catering at Northolt I think that it would be true to say that it established a fine reputation. People went to Northolt in the evening to eat at the airport because they thought that the food was so good. I confess that I do not hear of people going to London Airport to eat because they think that the food is good. I do not say that London Airport is an example of the worst kind of catering at British airports, because it is not, but it can be said that it is mediocre for very high prices. That is the first instance of a clear deterioration in the standard of catering.
Some of my Scottish colleagues would have something to say about Edinburgh and Glasgow—

Mr. William Baxter: Particularly Glasgow.

Mr. Shepherd: Particularly Glasgow, as the hon. Member says—in terms perhaps much less restrained than I intend to use. Although I have not a very extensive experience of Glasgow Airport, the position there does give rise to a good deal of concern to hon. Members and to people who live around and visit the airport.
Let me turn to an airport of which I have a good more personal knowledge, namely, Ringway. I am not exaggerating when I say that five or six years ago—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Ringway is an airport which is entirely the responsibility of the Manchester Corporation. I cannot answer any points my hon. Friend raises on municipal airports.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman; I did not know that. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) will appreciate the situation.

Mr. Shepherd: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but, on the other hand, I would point out to you, Sir, that my hon. Friend's Department pays very substantial grants to Ringway. Although it may be true that the airport is owned by the corporation, the Government spend a good deal of money on it.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that will not do to bring the hon. Member into order concerning Ringway Airport. Perhaps he can fly on.

Mr. Shepherd: As you say, Mr. Speaker, I can fly on. I merely content myself by saying that precisely the same conditions which exist at London Airport exist, although perhaps in a more acute form, at Ringway.
Bad catering at airports is so widespread that there are few airlines which can take their supplies from the resident catering establishments. In some cases, they have to go ten, twenty or thirty miles to obtain supplies because they cannot trust the standard of catering at the airports at which they call. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that airline companies have to go to the inconvenience of travelling many miles to obtain supplies which they consider satisfactory enough to feed to their passengers in the cabins. This trouble is due almost entirely to the attitude of the Ministry of Aviation and, as my hon. Friend has been ready to point out to me, of other authorities concerned with the control of airports.
I say that this matter is the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Department because of the method by which concessions are granted. They make absolutely certain that the best caterer is unlikely to be obtained. If I were to choose a method calculated to get other than the best kind of caterer, I should choose the method adopted by airport authorities. Almost invariably they grant the concession to the firm which will pay them the highest annual price for the concession. What happens is not unnatural. The firm that is prepared to go in for this sort of rat race either has to work on very small profits to pay the very large sum to the airport—there have been cases, I believe, where firms have gone bankrupt in trying to do this; certainly, some have gone out of business—or it must take it out of the customers, or both. This is precisely what happens.
I know, for example, that one of the best caterers in London would not go in for the contract at London Airport because of the methods of tendering and because, in the opinion of these people,—and they were qualified to pronounce

upon the matter—the facilities available at London Airport did not permit of first-class catering.
I want to see a change in the method. I want my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to alter the system by which contracts are allocated to caterers at airports. We ought to insist upon the highest possible standard of catering and not try to screw out of the contractor the highest sum of money. If my hon. Friend asks the sort of terms on which I suggest that the catering can be improved, I should have no difficulty in telling him.
To my mind, it is not inequitable to propose the following sort of terms. A caterer should pay to the airport authority a rent which can be calculated easily, because the rents for establishments at airports are fairly standardised and well known to most people. Then, the contractor could be required to pay to the airport authority a percentage of the net profit—I emphasise "net profit", not gross profit. In this way, the airport authority would be assured of a reasonable rental for the space which the contractor occupies and it would be identified with the commercial success of the catering. There would be no incentive on the part of the contractor to try to take out of the catering an excessive contract price which he had agreed to pay.
If these methods were adopted, my hon. Friend would be in a position of having to take a little more trouble. There then arises the question of selection of contractor. This is a matter which my hon. Friend would probably prefer not to have to do. I emphasise, however, that the present low standard of catering at British airports is damaging to our prestige and does not justifiably reflect the standard of catering of which we are capable.
I hope, therefore, that tonight my hon. Friend will be prepared to change the system on which hitherto, it seems, airport authorities have worked and to consider the possibility of a system that will encourage the better type of contractor and not rely upon a system which, by its very nature, must tend to encourage the one who is least likely to give satisfaction to the public.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) about this matter. We are indeed all members of what he described as "the eating public" and, as he forecast, I am certainly not at all ready to accept his views on this matter, although I can assure him that I am ready to admit anything that can be proved more specifically than the case that he has advanced. I do not believe that it is right or proper in a matter of this kind to make sweeping generalisations about bad catering and casual references to "stale buns" and "tired sandwiches".

Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend could not have listened to what I said. I did not say that. I referred to that as an aspect of railway catering twenty years ago. I said nothing of that about airports.

Mr. Rippon: I understood my hon. Friend to suggest that airport catering was much in the same state as railway catering twenty years ago. I have had no evidence from my hon. Friend of any specific complaints and, therefore, I must confine my remarks to the mote general matters of policy which he has raised. I do not accept the premise of my hon. Friend's argument, namely his allegation that the methods of tendering result in a low standard of catering at airports.
The responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation for catering, as I have indicated, is confined to those airports, about twenty in number, which the Ministry owns and operates. The policy is to provide a public catering service at all airports, and, as my hon. Friend recognised, the nature and scope of the service are naturally dependent upon the volume of traffic. As he readily admitted, that causes certain difficulties. At one end of the scale there is London Airport with three main restaurants and a number of buffets, and also cafeterias for spectators. At the other end there are places like some of the more remote Scottish aerodromes where provision, if needed at all, is confined to a coffee bar or snack service.
But, whatever the scope of the service, the approach is the same. It is to secure

through concessionaires a public catering service adequate to the needs of the passengers. I understand that the burden of my hon. Friend's argument is that the method by which we secure these concessionaires or caterers is unsatisfactory. The method employed to obtain concessionaires is by competitive tender, that is by invitation to tender which is sent to all caterers thought likely to be interested and—this is important—also capable of undertaking the job satisfactorily.
This is quite different from open tendering which implies advertisement and might well result in applications for the concession from men of straw or people willing to go into the business as a speculation. On the other hand, although we adopt this system of selective tendering, as it were, there is nothing to prevent anybody who may have been overlooked from applying for the tender document. I found no evidence of complaint about this system of selective tendering, which is, I submit, on very broad lines.
As for the basis of tendering, under this system the caterer is normally invited to tender on the basis of his agreeing to pay to the Ministry a percentage of his gross takings. He is free to offer whatever percentage he thinks appropriate, and it is customary to quote separately for food, drink, and tobacco. There is a clear objection to a flat rental basis; because retail trade at airports should be continually growing and the percentage method gives a corresponding financial benefit to the advantage of the taxpayer.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend added a percentage of the net profits, but I do not feel that an alteration of that kind would result in the better catering that he claims is necessary. Normally, other things being equal, the concession is awarded to the highest bidder. My hon. Friend is right on that point, but the ultimate test is which offer is likely to give the best financial return together with the requisite standards of service to the public. As the revenue actually received depends upon the standard of service, there is a clear relationship between the two. It is also important to have regard to whether the standard offered is too expensive, or too


low, for the passengers with whom we are dealing, and it has not been by any means the invariable practice to accept the highest bidder. Indeed, the tender documents make it quite clear that
The Minister gives no undertaking to accept the highest or any tender.
So much for the general practice in regard to entering into contracts. I quite understand that it is with the results that most hon. Members and the "eating public" are concerned—the standard of service and the sort of meals they get in airport restaurants and snack bars up and down the country. Catering is an art and there will always be room for improvement. There will always be days when things do not go exactly right, but I am bound to say that I have found very little evidence of complaints.
The number of complaints reaching the Ministry is comparatively small. Aerodrome commandants—at London Airport the general manager—are responsible for investigating these complaints and they have regular meetings with concessionaires. At London Airport there is a monthly meeting. There is always an item on the agenda headed "Complains", and I am told that for the last three months there has been

none. It is an express term of the contract that the caterer must comply with the Ministry's reasonable requirements, and, in fact, we approve the prices charged.
One difficulty which my hon. Friend mentioned was that of buildings. That is something which has nothing to do with the caterers, and it is true that at many airports we are still having to make do with passenger buildings of wartime and temporary construction. From time to time, those deficiencies in accommodation will reflect in standards of catering, and even at London we cannot yet provide the full range of services which we should like for the long-haul passengers, although we hope to do so when the new terminal buildings are completed.
I can only conclude by saying that if any hon. Members have any specific complaints about the catering arrangements at any of the Ministry's airports, I will undertake to look into the matter to see what can be done to bring about an improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.